Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-0609 JFM (HC)
08-30-2012
ANTHONY R. TURNER, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATES, Respondent.
ORDER AND
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for temporary restraining order. The court has reviewed both motions and finds them to be largely unintelligible. To the extent the motions can be construed as requests for an order directing certain individuals to refrain from harming petitioner, petitioner is informed that in this action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, this court's jurisdiction is limited to the fact or duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). In contrast, claims concerning the conditions of petitioner's confinement are properly raised in a civil rights complaint. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) ("[C]onstitutional claims that ... challenge the conditions of a prisoner's confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of the [habeas] core and may be brought pursuant to a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 [action] in the first instance."); Badea, 931 F.2d at 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenges to conditions of confinement by state prisoners should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus petition).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 5) be denied; and
2. Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 6) be denied.
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, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are 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).
_______________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE