1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RUDOLPH F. ESTRADA Case No. 1:23-cv-00444-ADA-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PETITION

13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

14 FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, (ECF No. 7) 15 Respondent. 16 17

18 Petitioner Rudolph F. Estrada (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition

19 for writ of habeas corpus that the Court construes to be filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 20 1.) On March 29, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge completed a screening of the petition. (ECF No. 21 7.) The Magistrate Judge found Petitioner’s constitutional claims were related to the conditions of the 22 Petitioner’s confinement rather than its legality, and, accordingly, are not cognizable in a federal habeas 23 corpus proceeding. (Id. at 2-4.) The Magistrate Judge, therefore, held that Petitioner’s claims may be 24 raised, if at all, in a § 1983 civil rights actions and directed the Clerk of Court to send Petitioner one 25 blank copy of the form complaint for § 1983 civil rights action. (Id. at 3-4.)1 26 27 1 The Court acknowledges that an earlier filing in this action served by mail on Petitioner was returned 28 “undeliverable” on April 3, 2023; however, the findings and recommendations were served on March 29, 2023, and have not been returned to the Court. 1 The findings and recommendations advised Petitioner that he must file any objections within □ 2 || days after service of the order and that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may wai' 3 || the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Jd. at 4 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 8: 4 || (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).) Petitioner did not file at 5 || objections; instead, on April 19, 2023, he filed a “PC Civil Rights Complaint” in a separate action. (EC 6 || No. 9); Estrada v. Duran, et al., No. 23-cv-00609-GSA. 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo revie 8 ||of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the findings a1 9 || recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The March 29, 2023, Findings and Recommendations, (ECF No. 7), are adopted in full; 12 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed with prejudice ar 13 without leave to amend as his claims fall outside the core of habeas corpus; and 14 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 ll rr Is SO ORDERED. □ f 17 Dated: _ June 30, 2023 18 UNITED $TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28