-BGS (HC) Porter v. C.D.C.R.

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing Petition without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 07/10/10.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

- B G S (HC) Porter v. C.D.C.R.

Doc. 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 O n June 18, 21010,Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for W rit of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of California. [Doc. N o . 1.] On June 23, 2010, the case was transferred to this Court. [Doc. No. 2.] FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS U p o n review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas C o r p u s brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. P e titio n e r lists various problems he claims he is facing in prison. Specifically, Petitioner claims th a t he has reported two incidents of administrative and custodial misconduct and has not been g iv e n a crime incident report despite numerous requests. Petitioner's claim is not cognizable o n habeas because it does not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. S e e 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 5 1 2 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). "Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state court -1Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER Petitioner, vs. C.D.C.R., Respondent.

Civil No.

10-1328 LAB (BGS)

O R D E R DISMISSING PETITION F O R FAILURE TO STATE A C O G N I Z A B L E CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_ E F I L E - P R O S E \L A B \ 1 0 c v 1 3 2 8 d is m is s .w p d , 7 1 2 1 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

jud g m en ts." McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974). In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws o r treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for s u m m a ry dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and a n y exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, 2 8 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal rights. C h a ll e n g e s to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of h ab ea s corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are b ro u g h t pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-500. W h e n a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and th e relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release f ro m that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the o th e r hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional c h a lle n g e to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 4 9 9 ; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). It a p p e ars that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of h is custody.1 Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. // // // // // // //

1

Petitioner filed a § 1983 complaint in case number 09cv1566 MMA (PCL), which was dismissed on August 26,

2009.
K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_ E F I L E - P R O S E \L A B \ 1 0 c v 1 3 2 8 d is m is s .w p d , 7 1 2 1 0

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C O N C L U SIO N B a se d on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to s t a t e a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT

J U D G M E N T BE ENTERED DISMISSING THE PETITION AND THE ACTION. I T IS SO ORDERED. D A T E D : July 10, 2010

H ONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS U n ite d States District Judge

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_ E F I L E - P R O S E \L A B \ 1 0 c v 1 3 2 8 d is m is s .w p d , 7 1 2 1 0

-3-