Brown v. Katavich
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/30/2014 RECOMMENDING that the 1 petition be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODNEY O’NEAL BROWN,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOHN N. KATAVICH,
Respondent.
16
17
No. 2:14-CV-1475-GEB-CMK-P
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
18
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for
19
a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1).
20
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary
21
dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
22
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the
23
instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. While the petition is
24
not the model of clarity, petitioner appears to challenge aspects of the conditions of his
25
confinement. For example, he complains of being strip-searched. He also complains about
26
conditions in administrative segregation. He specifically mentions the Americans with
1
1
Disabilities Act and appears to allege the denial of adequate medical care. Nowhere in the
2
petition does petitioner mention any arguments relating to his underlying conviction or sentence.
3
A cognizable habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arises when a state
4
prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of confinement or the duration of
5
confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or
6
immediate release. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v.
7
Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586
8
(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In the instant case, petitioner alleges facts consistent with a civil
9
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the facts alleged in this case do not relate to the
10
fact or duration of petitioner’s confinement, the matter is not the proper subject of a petitioner
11
under § 2254.
12
13
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the petition be
summarily dismissed.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
15
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
16
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
18
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
19
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
21
22
23
24
DATED: October 30, 2014
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
2
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?