Sanders v. Ponce

Full title: CURTIS DANE SANDERS, Petitioner, v. PONCE, et al., Respondents.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 18, 2015

No. 2:15-cv-1619 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-1619 CKD P

08-18-2015

CURTIS DANE SANDERS, Petitioner, v. PONCE, et al., Respondents.

CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

A writ of habeas corpus cannot issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 unless a prisoner is in custody in violation of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner does not assert he is in custody in violation of federal law, or challenge the length of his sentence. He challenges conditions of confinement. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed. If petitioner wishes to initiate an action regarding conditions of confinement, he should commence an action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1999). Petitioner is warned that if he elects to commence a Bivens action, the filing fee is $350 which petitioner will be permitted to pay in installments.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed.

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: August 18, 2015

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
sand1619.214