Opinion
No. 2:16-cv-1087 CKD P
05-25-2016
EUGENE HILL, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Respondent.
ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, petitioner may proceed with this action in forma pauperis.
Petitioner is serving a life sentence pursuant to a 1990 conviction. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) He challenges his 2014 transfer to a state medical facility after being classified "high risk medical." (Id. at 5-7.) Petitioner states in the petition that his federal claims are "not about [the] judgment of conviction." (Id. at 1, 6.) In November 2015, the Imperial County Superior Court denied his //// //// Petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he argued that the transfer violated his due process rights. (Id. at 30-31.)
A prisoner has no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution or housing unit or to be transferred from one facility to another. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-228 (1976); see also Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) ("An inmate's liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction so that the state may change his place of confinement even though the degree of confinement may be different and prison life may be more disagreeable in one institution than in another.").
A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the legality or duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 Adoption. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 Adoption. Here, as petitioner's claims do not relate to the duration of his confinement, they are not properly brought within this federal habeas action.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." For the foregoing reasons, and because it does not appear that the petition can be cured by amendment, the petition should be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4.
Petitioner may re-file any claims concerning prison conditions in an action pursuant to section 1983. Petitioner is advised that the statutory filing fee for such an action is $400.00. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). A section 1983 inmate plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is obligated to pay this fee in monthly installments from his or her prison trust account. --------
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under Section 2254. ////
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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." 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 Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: May 25, 2016
/s/_________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 / hill1087.R4_fr