(HC) Rice v. Brewer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROYLAND RICE, No. 2:21-cv-0649 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 P. THOMPSON, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and paid the filing fee. 19 In his petition, petitioner asserts that he was punished in some respect, which is not clear, 20 for refusing to accept deductions from his federal stimulus payment to satisfy some unspecified 21 financial obligation. Petitioner does not challenge the fact that he is confined, nor the duration of 22 his sentence. 23 A § 2241 habeas corpus petition is a vehicle for a federal prisoner's challenge to the 24 execution of his sentence. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 Challenges to a prisoner's conditions of confinement, however, must be brought through a civil 26 rights action, rather than through a habeas corpus petition. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 27 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its 28 duration are the province of habeas corpus . . .; requests for relief turning on circumstances of 1 | confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted). A civil rights action is the 2 || “proper remedy” for a prisoner “who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his 3 || prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 4 | (1973). “[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner's confinement, 5 || whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that core [of habeas relief]” 6 || and, instead, should be brought as a civil rights claim “in the first instance.” Nelson v. Campbell, 7 | 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016). 8 In light of the foregoing, the court will recommend that petitioner’s § 2241 petition be 9 | dismissed without prejudice to petitioner presenting the claims in the petition in a civil rights 10 | action. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court 12 || judge to this case. 13 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 15 2. This case be closed. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 18 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 19 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 20 || Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 21 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 22 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 || Dated: May 21, 2021 d ) / de dias CAN fe fl. Ago 24 CAROLYNK.DELANEY |” 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 || 1 37 rice0649.sd 28