Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIOVANNI TRIPPLETT, Case No.: 26-cv-1087-WQH-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 Jiovanni Tripplett (“Petitioner”), currently incarcerated at the George Bailey 19 Detention Facility and proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court 21 DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 22 FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 23 Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not moved to proceed in forma 24 pauperis. Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 25 fee or has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, see R. 3(a), Rules Governing Section 26 2254 Cases (2019), this case is subject to dismissal for failure to satisfy the filing fee 27 requirement. 28 / / / 1 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 2 In addition, Petitioner fails to name a proper respondent. In federal habeas cases, a 3 state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of them as the respondent. Ortiz- 4 Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing R. 2, Rules Governing § 2254 5 Cases (2019)). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to 6 name a proper respondent. See id. 7 “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the institution in 8 which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal 9 institutions.’” Id. (quoting R. 2, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (2019), advisory 10 committee’s note). Petitioner has named “San Diego County Sheriff’s Department” as 11 Respondent. For the Court to proceed, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the 12 state correctional facility in which Petitioner is currently confined or the Secretary of the 13 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 14 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 15 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM 16 The Petition is also subject to dismissal because a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claim Petitioner 18 presents. Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a 19 writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of 20 confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. 21 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488–500 (1973). “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very 22 fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that 23 he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole 24 federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 500. On the other hand, “a § 1983 action 25 is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the 26 conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Id. at 499. 27 Here, Petitioner indicates that the Petition concerns “prison discipline” rather than a 28 challenge to Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Specifically, Petitioner 1 alleges that a jail deputy, Corporal Rodriguez, “exhibited racial and gender bias against 2 me” and subjected Petitioner to cruel and unusual punishment; Petitioner requests the 3 deputy “be transferred and a stay away order.” Id. at 3. This claim is not cognizable on 4 habeas because it is unclear how it challenges the constitutional validity or duration of 5 Petitioner’s confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 6 Because Petitioner’s challenge appears to be only to the conditions of confinement 7 and not to the fact or length of Petitioner’s custody, the claim is not cognizable on habeas 8 corpus review and must instead be brought, “if at all,” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 9 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[W]e hold that if a state 10 prisoner’s claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus,’ it may not be brought in habeas 11 corpus but must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.”) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487 12 and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011)). 13 POTENTIAL CONVERSION TO SECTION 19831 14 The Court also finds the Petition is not amenable to conversion to a civil rights action 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Petitioner names the San Diego Sheriff’s Department as 16 Respondent and identifies the deputy purportedly involved only in the body of this pleading 17 rather than naming that individual as a defendant. See ECF No. 1 at 3; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 18 936 (“‘If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the 19 correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so 20 long as it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an 21 opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.’”) (quoting Glaus 22 v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th 23 Cir. 1988) (“The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and 24 25 1 The Court also notes that a habeas action involves a significantly different requisite filing fee than a civil action. 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 27 for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. 28 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. | |}responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have 2 ||caused a constitutional deprivation.”) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 3 ||(1976)). 4 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the instant habeas case without prejudice for 6 || failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a proper Respondent on federal 7 || habeas corpus, and failure to state a cognizable habeas corpus claim. The dismissal is also 8 || without prejudice to Petitioner raising this challenge in a new civil rights action pursuant 9 || to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be given a new case number. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank In Forma Pauperis 11 || Application and a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint form together with a 12 || copy of this Order. 13 |} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 ||Dated: February 27, 2026 BE: te Z. Ma 17 Hon, William Q. Hayes 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28