2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Kyrel L. Coleman, Case No. 2:24-cv-00764-CDS-MDC

5 Petitioner Order Dismissing Action and Closing Case

6 v.

7 James Dzurenda, et al.,

8 Respondents

9 10 This action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

, initiated, pro se, 11 on April 22, 2024, by Kyrel L. Coleman, an individual incarcerated at Nevada’s High Desert State 12 Prison (HDSP), in Indian Springs, Nevada. Coleman has paid the filing fee for this action and his 13 habeas petition has been filed. ECF No. 1. 14 I screen the petition as mandated by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 15 in the United States District Courts. Because the petition is not presented on the form required by 16 this court, and because, at any rate, it plainly appears that the petition does not assert a claim 17 upon which habeas corpus relief could be granted, I dismiss this action. 18 Local Rule LSR 3-1 requires that “[a] petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2254 must be on the form supplied by the court or must be legible and substantially follow 20 either that form or the form appended to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 21 States District Courts.” Coleman’s petition does not comply with that local rule. As a result, the 22 petition lacks a great deal of critical information, and it is subject to dismissal. However, even as 23 drafted, it is obvious from the face of Coleman’s petition that it does not assert a claim upon 24 which habeas corpus relief could be granted. 25 Information on the website of the Nevada Department of Corrections, a copy of which is 26 attached to Coleman’s petition (ECF No. 1 at 3), shows that Coleman is serving a sentence of four 27 to ten years in prison on a conviction of discharging a firearm at a structure or vehicle, and a 28 sentence of two to five years on a conviction of possession of a stolen vehicle. In his petition, 2 litigation in another case, apparently in state court, he was transferred on April 19, 2024, from the 3 Clark County Detention Center to HDSP. See ECF No. 1 at 1, 7. 4 There is no mention in Coleman’s petition of him ever asserting his claim in state court, 5 and, given that he alleges that the event underlying his claim—the transfer to HDSP—only 6 occurred on April 19, 2024, it would have been practically impossible for him to exhaust the claim 7 in state court before initiating this action on April 22, 2024. A federal court generally cannot grant 8 habeas corpus relief under

unless the petitioner has exhausted the remedies 9 available in state court.

(b)(1). 10 Furthermore, Coleman’s claim is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action. This 11 Court may “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody 12 pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 13 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a). Coleman does not 14 challenge the legal basis for his custody or the validity or duration of his custody; rather, he 15 challenges the location and conditions of his custody. Such a claim is not cognizable in a habeas 16 corpus action. A challenge to the location or conditions of custody must be brought in a civil 17 rights action under

, not in a habeas petition. See Nettles v. Grounds,

, 18 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars 19 affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus….”) (quoting Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)); Badea v. Cox,

(9th Cir. 1991) (“A civil rights action … is the 21 proper method of challenging ‘conditions of ... confinement.’”) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez,

475, 484 (1973)). While I do not mean to comment here on the merits of Coleman’s claim if 23 asserted in a civil rights action, I determine that it must be asserted in such an action, if at all. 24 Conclusion 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed, without prejudice. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as reasonable jurists would not find this order to be 27 debatable, the petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send to the 2 || petitioner the form for a prisoner’s civil rights complaint pursuant to

. 3 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, and to close this case. 4 Dated: April 24, 2024 /, SLL. 6 Crisfing 15. Silva United States District Judge wid 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28