Cooper v. Price et al
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/21/14 ORDERING the clerk of court assign a District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Case under section 2254. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JERRY LEE COOPER,
No. 2:14-cv-0664 CKD P
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
WARDEN J PRICE, et al.,
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges that overcrowded conditions in the state’s
prisons have resulted in violations of his constitutional rights. He seeks relief in the form of a
“prison overcrowding reduction plan consistent with the principles of Equal Protection.” (ECF
Petitioner’s challenge to his conditions of confinement is properly the subject of an action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As the United States Supreme Court has stated:
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).
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
summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the
instant case, it is plain from the petition and appended exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to
federal habeas relief. Therefore, the petition should be summarily dismissed.1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a
district judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
objections. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
(9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: March 21, 2014
2 / coop0554.R4
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner may re-file the instant claims in an action pursuant to section 1983. 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?