Lonsdale v. Lemus
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- dismissed — 1 at 24 1-3.) He claims that as a result, that case was dismissed for failure to prosecute in violation 25 of his due process rights, and he continues to be incarcerated in violation of his First 26 Amendment right to the free exercise of his religious beliefs which amounts to cruel and 27 unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, conditions he was challe
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a pretrial detainee who alleged that tampered legal mail caused the dismissal of his prior civil action challenging jail conditions. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the petition for lack of habeas jurisdiction, noting that challenges to conditions of confinement must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“Based on a review of Petitioner’s financial affidavit, the Court GRANTS his application to proceed in forma pauperis and allows him to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security.” | agree with court The order recites that the court reviewed the financial affidavit and found the petitioner qualified. This is a standard procedural determination based on the submitted evidence. |
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction“The Court lacks habeas jurisdiction over Petitioner’s challenge to the conditions of his confinement at the San Diego County Jail or over the dismissal of his civil case in So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 22cv0390-TWR (JLB) in which he challenged those conditions.” | agree with court The petitioner is challenging the dismissal of a civil rights suit regarding conditions of confinement, not the legality or duration of his detention. Under Preiser v. Rodriguez and its progeny, such claims do not fall within the core of habeas corpus and must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court correctly identified that habeas is the exclusive remedy only for claims that would necessarily result in speedier release. Since the petitioner's grievance is about the loss of a civil case and the conditions themselves, not the fact of detention, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Preiser doctrine to distinguish between challenges to the fact of confinement (habeas) and challenges to conditions of confinement (Section 1983). The petitioner's claim that his civil case was dismissed due to mail tampering is a procedural grievance related to a civil rights suit, not a direct challenge to the legality of his detention. The court properly cited binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority to support the conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for these claims. The dismissal without prejudice allows the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy in the underlying civil case or via a new Section 1983 action.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GABRIEL PIES LONSDALE, Case No.: 25cv1223-AJB (JLB)
11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE 13 LEMUS, Warden, et al, 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the San Diego County Jail proceeding 18 pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along 19 with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Petitioner claims that his 20 legal mail has been tampered with resulting in his failure to timely receive a January 18, 21 2023, Order in So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 22cv0390-TWR (JLB), granting in part and 22 denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil action and ordering Petitioner to 23 show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 1 at 24 1-3.) He claims that as a result, that case was dismissed for failure to prosecute in violation 25 of his due process rights, and he continues to be incarcerated in violation of his First 26 Amendment right to the free exercise of his religious beliefs which amounts to cruel and 27 unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, conditions he was challenging 28 in that other case. (Id. at 4-5.) 1 Based on a review of Petitioner’s financial affidavit, the Court GRANTS his 2 application to proceed in forma pauperis and allows him to prosecute the above-referenced 3 action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being 4 required to post security. 5 However, the Petition is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because 6 Petitioner is challenging the dismissal of a civil action in which he challenged the 7 conditions of his confinement rather than the duration of his incarceration. The Ninth 8 Circuit has long held that the “the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the 9 legality or duration of confinement” and does not cover claims based on allegations “that 10 the terms and conditions of . . . incarceration constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” 11 Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979). A prisoner’s claim is at “the core of 12 habeas corpus” if it “goes directly to the constitutionality of his physical confinement itself 13 and seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration.” 14 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 15 (2005) (holding that an action sounds in habeas “no matter the relief sought (damages or 16 equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit . . . if success in that action would 17 necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”); Skinner v. Switzer, 18 562 U.S. at 521, 525 (2011) (“Habeas is the exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner who 19 seeks immediate or speedier release from confinement. Where the prisoner’s claim would 20 not necessarily spell speedier release, however, suit may be brought under § 1983.”) 21 (citation and quote marks omitted); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th 22 Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[W]e hold that if a state prisoner’s claim does not lie at ‘the core of 23 habeas corpus,’ it may not be brought in habeas corpus but must be brought, ‘if at all,’ 24 under § 1983.”), quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487. 25 If it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 26 is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct 27 the clerk to notify the petitioner.” R. 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (2019); see 28 also id., R. 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply the 2254 Habeas Rules to § 2241 habeas 1 proceedings). The Court lacks habeas jurisdiction over Petitioner’s challenge to the 2 ||conditions of his confinement at the San Diego County Jail or over the dismissal of his 3 || civil case in So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 22cv0390-TWR (JLB) in which he challenged 4 ||those conditions. The dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Petitioner to attempt 5 ||to seek relief from final judgment in So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 22cv0390-TWR (JLB) 6 || based on the allegations in this petition that he did not receive notice of the order to show 7 || cause. 8 Petitioner’s Motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED and the Petition is DISMISSED 9 || for lack of habeas jurisdiction without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court will enter final 10 ||judgment and close the case. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: June 19, 2025 | ZS Zz : Le 13 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28