(HC) Singh v. Macomber

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:23-cv-02804-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDNGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JEFF MACOMBER, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed two motions seeking an order compelling state officials to release him. ECF Nos. 5, 6.

20 It is an open question in the Ninth Circuit whether district courts may grant provisional release from incarceration to a habeas petitioner pending resolution of the petition. United States v. McCandless, 841 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 2016); In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001). If courts do possess such authority, provisional release is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success. McCandless, 841 F.3d at 822.

25 Petitioner argues that he was convicted of a “non-crime,” but he fails to make a cogent argument supporting that position. He also argues that he is unable to obtain adequate programming and health care at his current institution. Such arguments, which concern the conditions of petitioner’s confinement rather than the merits of his habeas petition, are properly || raised through the prison’s administrative grievance procedure and/or a civil rights suit under 42 || US.C. § 1983. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011) (‘[W]hen a prisoner's claim | would not necessarily spell speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus, || and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district || judge to this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motions for release (ECF | Nos. 5, 6) be DENIED.

8 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.” Any response to the || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17 || Dated: October 1, 2024 ibtiz AU 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE