Opinion
No. CIV S-08-0769-JAM-CMK-P.
October 23, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On September 16, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of this habeas action because petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of his confinement. Specifically, petitioner claims that his due process rights were violated when he was validated as a gang member and placed in the secured housing unit. The magistrate judge concluded petitioner's claims, at best, is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his objections, petitioner asserts that his case may proceed as a habeas case pursuant to Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995), where, according to petitioner, the Supreme Court held that prisoners have a liberty interest in freedom from confinement in administrative segregation. While petitioner is correct that Sandin discusses due process, that case arose in the context of a prisoner civil rights case under § 1983 and not a habeas case under § 2254. Further, the Court in Sandin concluded that the plaintiff did not have a due process interest in being free from disciplinary segregation. Therefore, Sandin is not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 16, 2008, are adopted in full;
2. Respondents' motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is granted;
3. This action is dismissed; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.