“Challenges to the lawfulness of 4 | confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus’
How later courts described this case
- “Challenges to the lawfulness of 4 | confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MALCOLM HANSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00599-JLT-SAB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
13 v. ACTION
14 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, et al., (Doc. 9)
15 Defendants.
16
17 The magistrate judge reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28
18 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that Plaintiff was “challenging the denial of parole,” and did not raise
19 claims concerning the conditions of his confinement. (Doc. 9 at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate
20 judge determined “the appropriate avenue to obtain relief is not a § 1983 action.” (Id. at 3.) The
21 magistrate judge recommended the claims be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing as a
22 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Id. at 4.)
23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff on February 27, 2023,
24 and it contained a notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of the date of
25 service. (Doc. 9 at 4.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on May 5, 2023, reiterating his belief
26 that the defendants have acted unlawfully because he “is suitable for parole.” (Doc. 10 at 2.)
27 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court performed a de novo review of the case.
Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and
1 | Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Because Plaintiff does not
2 | challenge the conditions of his confinement but rather the duration, his claims are not proper under
3 |Section 1983. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (“Challenges to the lawfulness of
4 | confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus’) (citation
5 |omitted). Thus, the Court ORDERS:
6 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on April 25, 2023 (Doc. 9) are
7 ADOPTED in full.
8 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
10
i IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ May 19, 2023 Cerin | Tower
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28