(HC)Price v. Unknown

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SCOTT RICHARD PRICE, No. 2:21-cv-2346-EFB P 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNKNOWN, 13 Respondent.

15 Petitioner is a county jail inmate without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 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 No. 1 at 5. As discussed below, the petition must be dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial review by a judge, it 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 imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief 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 Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. That request is granted.

1 | (1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ | of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only | onthe ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United | 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 | legality or duration of his confinement, his claims are not cognizable in this federal habeas action | 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 | 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 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In | his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the | event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing | § 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a | final order adverse to the applicant).

27 | Dated: March 10, 2022. tid DEMA~ EDMUND F. BRENNAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE