Dawes v. The People
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a pre-trial detainee challenging conditions of confinement. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice because the petitioner failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and because the claims were not cognizable under habeas statutes.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the petition for failure to pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.“Because this Court cannot proceed unless Petitioner either pays the filing fee or submits a motion to proceed in forma paupers, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that a filing fee or IFP status is a prerequisite to proceeding in federal court. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural remedy when a pro se litigant fails to satisfy this threshold requirement. |
Dismissal of the petition for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.“The Petition is DISMISSED because Petitioner has not satisfied the filing fee requirement and has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that challenges to conditions of confinement are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241, as established by Preiser v. Rodriguez. The proper vehicle for such claims is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The dismissal is appropriate as the petition was filed in the wrong procedural form. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Preiser v. Rodriguez framework to distinguish between habeas claims (fact/duration of confinement) and civil rights claims (conditions of confinement). It accurately cites binding Supreme Court authority to support the conclusion that the petitioner's claims regarding medical treatment are not cognizable in a habeas petition. The procedural dismissal for lack of filing fee is also standard. The reasoning is complete and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No.: 19cv1920-LAB (AGS)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 THE PEOPLE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor 19 submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 21 Because this Court cannot proceed unless Petitioner either pays the filing fee or 22 submits a motion to proceed in forma paupers, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 23 BASIS FOR THE PETITION 24 In addition, Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, he 25 is a pretrial detainee who indicates he is not challenging a state court conviction in this 26 action. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) Rather, he is challenging the conditions of his confinement, 27 specifically, medical decisions regarding mental health treatment made during his current 28 pre-trial custody. (See id. at 6-19.) 1 Petitioner’s claims challenging the conditions of confinement are not cognizable on 2 || federal habeas corpus because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration 3 ||of his confinement. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), the Court held that 4 habeas is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his 5 ||confinement and where the relief he seeks is a determination he is entitled to release from 6 ||that confinement. Id. at 488-500. Challenges to conditions of confinement are brought 7 || pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 499; see also Mayle v. Felix, 545 8 ||U.S. 644, 671 n.4 (2005) (“the single, defining feature setting habeas cases apart from other 9 || tort claims against the State is that they ‘necessarily demonstrate[e] the invalidity of the 10 ||conviction.’”), quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994) (holding that 11 claims which “do not call into question the lawfulness of the conviction or confinement,” 12 || or challenge the fact or duration of custody, or “seek immediate or speedier release” from 13 || custody, are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.) Neither are his claims cognizable 14 || under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Wright v. Shartle, 699 Fed.Appx. 733, 733 (9th Cir. 2017) 15 || (holding that claims which “do not concern the manner, location, or conditions of [a] 16 || sentence’s execution” are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). 17 Petitioner is advised that if he wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement 18 must file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be filed as a 19 || separate civil action and given a separate civil case number. 20 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 The Petition is DISMISSED because Petitioner has not satisfied the filing fee 22 |/requirement and has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim. The dismissal is without 23 || leave to amend in this case, but without prejudice to Petitioner to challenge the conditions 24 || of his confinement in a separate civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: October 11, 2019 lau 4A Ay 17 Chief Judge Larry A. Burns United States District Court 28