(HC) Kibunguchy v. Tylenol Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 20, 20202:20-cv-00574California484 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHRIS W. KIBUNGUCHY, No. 2:20-cv-0574 KJN Petitioner, v. ORDER TYLENOL CORPORATION, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Petitioner is incarcerated at Atascadero State Hospital in Atascadero, California. In his only claim for relief, petitioner alleges that Dr. McGee is forcing petitioner to take Zyprexa. Elsewhere in the petition, petitioner alleges that he complained to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the side effects of his medication. The purpose of a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. The purpose of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is to challenge conditions of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.