Kononov v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/29/15 ORDERING that petitioners application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7 ) is granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice to filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk is directed to close the case. CASE CLOSED.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VITALY V. KONONOV,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-436-EFB P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARMENT,
Respondent.

15
16

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
17

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules

18
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that it must be summarily dismissed. See Rule 4,
19
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial
20
review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
21
court”).
22
Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s
23
imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights
24
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

1

duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief

2

turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action.

3

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500

4

(1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ

5

of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only

6

on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

7

States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

8

Petitioner’s claims for relief concern allegations of an instance of excessive force,

9

administrative appeals, mail, and requests for medical attention that have gone unanswered, and

10

denial of food, showers, yard time, and telephone access. See ECF No. 1. Petitioner’s claims

11

concern the conditions of his confinement. They do not sound in habeas because they do not

12

concern the validity or duration of his confinement.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma

14

pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice to filing a civil

15

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

16

Dated: April 29, 2015.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2