Wahid v. Foulk

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/03/13 ordering that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMIR WAHID,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-2191 CKD P

v.

ORDER

F. FOULK,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to this court’s jurisdiction

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. The petition alleges that officials at High

20

Desert State Prison (HDSP) did not properly address an administrative grievance submitted by

21

petitioner. It also challenges the hardship transfer policy at HDSP, i.e., the “blanket denial of

22

transfers.” Petitioner seeks an order directing HDSP officials to transfer him to another prison,

23

closer to his family, within sixty days. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner’s challenges to his conditions of confinement are properly the subject of an

24
25

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such actions have different procedural and

26

exhaustion requirements, and are governed by a different body of substantive law, than actions

27

seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus. As the United States Supreme Court has stated:

28

////
1

1

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related
to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. §
1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of
any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the
province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement
may be presented in a § 1983 action. . . . Federal petitions for
habeas corpus may be granted only after other avenues of relief
have been exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). [Citation.]
Prisoners suing under § 1983, in contrast, generally face a
substantially lower gate, even with the requirement of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that administrative opportunities be
exhausted first. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750-751 (2004) (per curiam).
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for

10
11

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and

12

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the

13

instant case, it is plain from the petition and appended exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to

14

federal habeas relief. Therefore, the petition should be summarily dismissed.1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for

15
16

a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed.

17

Dated: December 3, 2013

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22

2 / wahi2191.156b

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner may re-file the instant claims in an action pursuant to section 1983. But see Meachum
v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (holding that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be
housed at a particular prison within a state’s prison system). Petitioner is advised that the
statutory filing fee for such an action is $350.00. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). A section
1983 inmate plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is obligated to pay this fee in monthly
installments from his or her prison trust account.
2