1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN DANIEL WEST, No. 2:21-cv-0330-EFB P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

13 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., 14 Respondents. 15

16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The petition (ECF No. 1) does not challenge petitioner’s underlying 19 conviction; it instead concerns the alleged deliberate indifference of Dr. Htay Soe at Wasco State 20 Prison to plaintiff’s severe kidney disease. Accordingly, as discussed below, the petition must be 21 dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas 22 petition if, upon initial review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to 23 relief in the district court”). 24 Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s 25 imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights 26 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the 27

28 1 Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 1 duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief 2 turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action. 3 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 4 (1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ 5 of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only 6 on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 7 States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 8 Because petitioner’s claim challenges the conditions of his confinement as opposed to the 9 legality or duration of his confinement, his claim is not cognizable in this federal habeas action. 10 This action must be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner commencing a new action using the 11 court’s form for a civil rights complaint filed by a prisoner. 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 13 1. The Clerk is directed to send petitioner a form for filing a civil rights complaint by a 14 prisoner; and 15 2. The Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 16 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus 17 be denied. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 24 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 25 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 26 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 2 || adverse to the applicant). 3 | Dated: April 16, 2021. tid, PDEA 4 EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28