Jones v. Fresno Cnty. Jail

Full title: LaTONIA JONES, Petitioner, v. FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 6, 2015

Case No. 1:15-cv-01010-BAM HC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:15-cv-01010-BAM HC

08-06-2015

LaTONIA JONES, Petitioner, v. FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, Respondent.

Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (Doc. 1)

Petitioner proceeds pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.¹ Petitioner challenges the conditions of confinement in the Fresno County Jail, particularly with regard to fire safety.

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment. --------

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9^th Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9^th Cir. 1971). In this case, dismissal is warranted.

Challenges to the conditions of prison life are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973).

Fire prevention and other safety precautions may constitute violations of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9^th Cir. 1985). "Persons involuntarily confined by the state have a constitutional right to safe conditions of confinement." Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, 1183 (1^st Cir. 1983) (citing Youngblood v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982)). "Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain relief from such conditions." Santana, 714 F.2d at 1183 (citing Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674, 675-76 (9^th Cir. 1980).

Because Petitioner's claims are not among those for which the Court may grant habeas relief, the Court must dismiss the habeas petition. Petitioner may seek relief, however, by filing her claims in a civil rights action pursuant to § 1983.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court hereby DISMISSES Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a civil rights complaint form. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6 , 2015

/s/ Barbara A . McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE