Williams v. San Diego Sheriff's Department
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM Challenges to the fact or duration 4 of confinement are brought by petition for a
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case without prejudice and without leave to amend, finding that the petitioner's claims regarding conditions of confinement were not cognizable in a habeas action and must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), which sets the filing fee for habeas corpus petitions at $5.00. The record indicates the petitioner had a prison trust account balance of $703.80, which is sufficient to pay the fee. Therefore, the petitioner does not meet the financial criteria for in forma pauperis status. |
Case Dismissed Without Prejudice and Without Leave to Amend“the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 2), and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner's allegations (e.g., false incident reports, denial of showers/medical care, drug use by other inmates) constitute challenges to the conditions of confinement rather than the fact or duration of confinement. Under Preiser v. Rodriguez, such claims are not cognizable in a § 2254 habeas petition and must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the claims are legally insufficient for the chosen vehicle, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate to allow the petitioner to refile in the correct form. Denying leave to amend is consistent with the principle that a habeas petition cannot be amended to become a § 1983 complaint; a new action must be filed. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-established Preiser v. Rodriguez doctrine to distinguish between habeas and § 1983 claims. The factual allegations cited by the court clearly relate to conditions of confinement (medical access, hygiene, safety) rather than the validity or length of the sentence. The denial of IFP status is supported by the specific financial data provided in the record. The dismissal without prejudice is the standard procedural remedy when a prisoner files the wrong type of action, allowing them to refile correctly. The order is legally sound and procedurally appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00816-LAB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEP’T., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondent. [Dkt. 2]
16 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 18 19 On May 31, 2022, Petitioner Tommy Lee Williams, a state prisoner 20 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254, (Dkt. 1, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”)), and a motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 2). 23 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 Petitioner filed a prison certificate in support of his motion to proceed in forma 25 pauperis, which reflects a $703.80 balance in his prison trust account. (Dkt. 2 at 26 5). The filing fee associated with this type of action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1914(a). Thus, it appears Petitioner can pay the requisite filing fee. Accordingly, 28 the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 II. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM 2 A petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the 3 proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. Challenges to the fact or duration 4 of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 5 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to 6 the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 7 488–500 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016). When a 8 state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, 9 and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release 10 or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 11 habeas corpus. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. On the other 12 hand, a § 1983 action is the proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a 13 constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or 14 length of his custody. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. 15 Here, Petitioner alleges, in part, that jail personnel are creating “false incident 16 reports,” unlawfully taking his Veteran’s Administration checks, and allowing 17 inmates to take drugs. (Pet. at 6–20). He also alleges that he was “thrown in Ad 18 Seg”; denied access to a shower, a doctor, and his lawyer; deprived of sleep; and 19 given dirty razors and laundry. (Id.). Petitioner’s claims aren’t cognizable on 20 habeas because they don’t challenge the constitutional validity or duration of his 21 confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Heck v. 22 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480–85 (1994); Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. Instead, he 23 challenges the conditions of his prison life. Thus, Petitioner hasn’t stated a 24 cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed 27 in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 2), and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 28 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of 1 confinement, he must file a new civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which 2 be given a new case number. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail 3 || Petitioner a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint form together with a copy 4 || of this Order." 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. (anu bun 7 Dated: July 6, 2022 A Wy 8 Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||' Petitioner filed a separate habeas corpus petition in this Court in Case No. 3:22- 26 cv-00524-GPC-NLS, which challenges the same conviction as Petitioner seeks to challenge in this case; the Court dismissed that case on abstention grounds. See 27 || Williams v. Fisher, S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:22-cv-00524-GPC-NLS, Dkt. 2. Petitioner 28 is advised that should he seek to challenge his state court criminal proceedings in this case, it will also be subject to dismissal on abstention grounds.