(HC) Singh v. Macomber

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:23-cv-02804-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDNGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF MACOMBER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed two motions seeking an order compelling state 19 officials to release him. ECF Nos. 5, 6. 20 It is an open question in the Ninth Circuit whether district courts may grant provisional 21 release from incarceration to a habeas petitioner pending resolution of the petition. United States 22 v. McCandless, 841 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 2016); In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001). If 23 courts do possess such authority, provisional release is reserved for extraordinary cases involving 24 special circumstances or a high probability of success. McCandless, 841 F.3d at 822. 25 Petitioner argues that he was convicted of a “non-crime,” but he fails to make a cogent 26 argument supporting that position. He also argues that he is unable to obtain adequate 27 programming and health care at his current institution. Such arguments, which concern the 28 conditions of petitioner’s confinement rather than the merits of his habeas petition, are properly 1 || raised through the prison’s administrative grievance procedure and/or a civil rights suit under 42 2 || US.C. § 1983. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011) (‘[W]hen a prisoner's claim 3 | would not necessarily spell speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus, 4 || and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 6 || judge to this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motions for release (ECF 7 | Nos. 5, 6) be DENIED. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 10 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 13 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 14 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 || Dated: October 1, 2024 ibtiz AU 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28