(HC)Price v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SCOTT RICHARD PRICE, No. 2:21-cv-2346-EFB P 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 UNKNOWN, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner is a county jail inmate without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 16 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The petition does not challenge petitioner’s underlying conviction. 17 Instead, it “concerns conditions of confinement that occurred on the date of [ ] 05/04/21.” ECF 18 No. 1 at 5. As discussed below, the petition must be dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 19 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial review by a judge, it 20 plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court”). 21 Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s 22 imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights 23 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the 24 duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief 25 turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action. 26 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 27 1 Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. That request is 28 granted. 1 | (1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ 2 | of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only 3 | onthe ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 4 | States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 5 Because petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement as opposed to the 6 | legality or duration of his confinement, his claims are not cognizable in this federal habeas action 7 | and must be dismissed. 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted; 10 2. The Clerk of Court shall to send petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form to assist 11 petitioner in filing a new civil rights action should he so choose; and 12 3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 13 action. 14 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus 15 | be denied without prejudice to filing his claims in a new action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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)(1). Within fourteen days 18 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 21 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 22 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 23 | his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 24 | event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 25 | § 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 26 | final order adverse to the applicant). 27 | Dated: March 10, 2022. tid DEMA~ EDMUND F. BRENNAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE