Olic v. Lizaraga

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/13/2015 DENYING petitioner's 29 "motion to return to Mule Creek State Prison", without prejudice to petitioner filing the same claims in a new civil rights action. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MILORAD OLIC,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2120 KJM GGH P
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

WARDEN JOE A. LIZARRAGA,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a “motion to return to Mule Creek

18

State Prison.” He sets forth various claims of misconduct by prison officials, including being

19

transferred to another prison based on false information and without notice or paperwork, that he

20

was brutally attacked by a CDCR officer, that he was moved yet again to CSP-Sacramento

21

“without any explanation or ICC endorsement,” and that he has no access to library services.

22

Petitioner claims that these actions constitute violations of his constitutional rights.

23

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,
93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief turning on
circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 1983 action.

24
25
26
27
28

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam).
1

1

Here, the motion does not pertain to the validity or duration of petitioner’s confinement

2

which is the subject of his pending habeas petition, but to the conditions of his confinement. It is

3

clear that by this filing petitioner makes new civil rights claims which are appropriate for a new

4

civil rights action, and are not pertinent to this habeas petition.1

5

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: Petitioner’s “motion to return to Mule Creek State

6

Prison,” filed July 7, 2015, (ECF No. 29), is denied without prejudice to petitioner filing the same

7

claims in a new civil rights action.

8

DATED: July 13, 2015

9

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

10

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14

GGH:076/Olic2120.civrts

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The allegation that petitioner has not received library access does not implicate this habeas
corpus action at the present time as the amended petition has already been filed, and respondent is
due to file a response shortly. If petitioner encounters problems with library access in preparing
his reply, he is directed to immediately inform this court.
2