(HC) Spears v. El Dorado County Jail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAUREN SPEARS, Case No. 2:21-cv-01769-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 13 v. UNDER SECTION 2254 AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY 14 EL DORADO COUNTY JAIL, DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 1 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it cannot proceed under § 2254. The claims 19 made therein concern the conditions of petitioner’s confinement and should be brought, if at all, 20 in a section 1983 action. 21 The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must 23 examine the habeas petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is 24 not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. 25 Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 26 Petitioner’s claims concern various issues related to the conditions of her confinement at 27 the El Dorado County Jail. She claims that the officers at that facility have retaliated against her, 28 subjected her to sexual harassment, interfered with the delivery of her mail, and taken insufficient 1 | precautions to limit the spread of Covid-19. ECF No. 1 at 2-6. Claims related to conditions of 2 | confinement, like these, should be brought in a section 1983 action. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 3 | F.3d 922, 929-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (claims that would not necessarily lead to immediate 4 | or earlier release do not fall within the “core of habeas corpus” and may not be brought in a 5 | habeas proceeding). I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend and explain why her claims 6 | are suitable to proceed in this habeas action. Alternatively, she may elect to convert this case into 7 | asection 1983 action. 8 It is ORDERED that: 9 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 10 2. Petitioner may file either an amended petition or a section 1983 complaint within 11 | thirty days of this order’s entry. If she fails to do either, I will recommend that the current 12 || petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order. 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner both a federal habeas form and a 14 | section 1983 form with this order. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ March 8, 2022 q_-—_— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28