Free Order Dismissing Case - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-04254-JF

Document 6

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE LEE WALKER, Petitioner, vs. EVANS, et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C 07-4254 JF (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 5)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a form petition upon which
19

petitioner appears to have written a letter to another inmate named "Alabama" about
20

small amounts of funds in their prison trust accounts. Attached to this filing are several
21

pages of footnotes and other text from what appears to be a legal summary of various
22

habeas corpus procedures.
23

A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a
24

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is
25

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28
26

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award
27

the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not
28
Order of Dismissal P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Walker254dis

Case 5:07-cv-04254-JF

Document 6

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The petition sets forth no claims that his state court conviction or sentence violate any federal law. Indeed, petitioner has submitted a form petition but has not answered any of the questions on the form; instead, petitioner rather has simply used the form to write what appears to be a letter to another inmate. The attachments to the form petition consist of copies of pages from a legal summary, consisting primarily of unexplained footnotes and a brief amount of text discussing habeas corpus procedures. Petitioner raises no claims for habeas relief in these attachments, however, nor does he explain how they might relate to his petition. Accordingly, even liberally construed, the petition does not set forth any cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief.1 CONCLUSION The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/22/08 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

As noted, the letter discusses small amounts of funds in the inmates' trust accounts. To whatever extent petitioner means to raise any claims stemming from the managment of such accounts by prison officials, plaintiff must do so in a civil rights complaint, not in a habeas petition. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (implying that claim, which if successful would "necessarily" or "likely" accelerate the prisoner's release on parole, must be brought in a habeas petition); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement).
Order of Dismissal P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Walker254dis

1

Case 5:07-cv-04254-JF

Document 6

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following: Eddie Lee Walker. C-24239 Salinas Valley State Prison P.O. Box 1050 Soledad, CA 93960

Order of Dismissal P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Walker254dis