Mark Shannon Weaver v. Linda Sanders

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE: (See document for details.) For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (rla)

1

2

I HEREBY CERTIFY THATTHIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED Bt
_ _1
,
FIRST CLASS MAll POSTAGE PREPAID, TO,m S91:1NSEL·(<:.-\=-T<.,_,j"
-(.QI1 PIIR11ESJ•AT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOST RECENT ADDRESS OF
RECORD IN THIS ACTION ON THIS DATE,

3

DATED:

4

DEPUTY ClERK

FILED • SOUTHERN QIVISION
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURl

S'·\b.\3

MAY I 6 2013
CENTR~DISTAICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

BY

6

v

7

DEPUTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

~

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Case No. CV 13-3269-FMO (JPR)
MARK SHANNON WEAVER,

11

Petitioner,

12

13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUMMARILY
DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

vs.
LINDA SANDERS, Warden,

14

Respondent.

15
16

Petitioner's 28 U.S.C.

§

2241 habeas action improperly

17

challenges the conditions of his confinement rather than the

18

validity or duration of that confinement.

19

dismisses the petition_summarily, without prejudice to

20

Petitioner's pursuit of relief through a civil rights action

21

under 42 U.S.C.

22

§

Accordingly, the Court

1983.

Petitioner Mark Shannon Weaver is a federal inmate currently

23

housed at the Federal Correctional Center in Terre Haute,

24

Indiana.

25

Beaumont, Texas, from the FCC in Lompoc, California, at both of

26

which he was apparently previously housed, never arrived and has

He asserts that personal property mailed to him at FCC

27

28
1

1 been lost.

(Pet. at 3.)

1

He further asserts that prison

2

officials did not follow proper procedure in preparing and

3

shipping the materials.

4

for lost or stolen property by staff incompetence," for a total

5

of $778.90.

6

(Pet. at 4.)

He seeks to be "reimbursed

(Pet. at 3.)

But the principal purpose of a habeas corpus writ is to

7

provide a remedy for prisoners challenging the fact or duration

8

of their confinement and who are thus seeking either immediate or

9

a sooner-than-scheduled release.

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

10

U.S. 475, 484, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1833, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973)

11

(holding that habeas petition, not civil rights action, proper

12

vehicle for seeking restoration of good-time credits) .

13

Supreme Court has left open the possibility that habeas petitions

14

"may .

15

conditions," which ordinarily must be challenged by way of a

16

civil rights action.

17

U.S. 520, 527 n.6, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 1868 n.~, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447

18

(1979)

19

conditions but declining to decide issue) .

20

Circuit completely foreclosed the use of habeas actions to

21

challenge prison living conditions.

22

F.3d 1024, 1030

23

illustrating how Ninth and several other "Circuits have all

24

struggled .

25

but noting that "[n]one ha[s] suggested that the avenues for

26

relief must always be mutually exclusive").

.

The

. also be available to challenge . . . prison

Id. at 499-500; accord Bell v. Wolfish, 441

(noting possibility of habeas as means to address prison

&

n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)

Nor has the Ninth

See Docken v. Chase, 393
(collecting cases

. . with the distinction between the two remedies"

27
1

28

The pages of the Petition are not in order. The Court
uses the preprinted number at the bottom of each page.
2

1

Allowing a habeas corpus action to challenge prison

2
3

Circuit has made clear that the preferred, "proper" practice is

4

to limit habeas cases to claims that would lead to the

5
6

petitioner's release sooner than otherwise would occur and to

conditions appears to be the rare exception, however.

confine other prisoner claims to civil rights suits.

The Ninth

See Badea

7 v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) ("A civil rights

8

action, in contrast [to a habeas petition] , is the proper method

9 of challenging 'conditions of . . . confinement.'"); accord
10

Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.l (9th Cir. 1979)

11

(affirming dismissal of habeas petition because petition's

12

challenges to conditions of confinement had to be brought in

13

civil rights action); see also Gavin v. Lappin, No. CV 11-00095

14

AHM (RZ), 2011 WL 166288 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2011)

15

habeas petition seeking return of property allegedly lost by

16

prison officials without prejudice to refiling as civil rights

17

action).

18

(dismissing

Here, if Petitioner's claim were to succeed, he would not be

19

entitled to an accelerated release from confinement.

20

would get his property back or receive the fair value of it.

21

Court sees no justification for deviating from the "proper"

22

course, namely, requiring conditions-of-confinement claims like

23

Petitioner's to be brought in a civil rights action.

24

district court does have discretion to construe a habeas petition

25

raising civil rights claims as a civil rights action, see

26

Wi1wording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 409, 30

27

L. Ed. 2d 418 (1971)

28

the Court chooses not to do so here, given that Petitioner

Instead, he

Although a

(superseded by statute on other grounds),

3

The

1 appears to allege mere negligence, not any sort of constitutional

2
3
4
5

violation. 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

8

DATED: May 15, 2013

9

s
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
Judge

13
14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21

22
23
24
25

26
27
28

2

Petitioner apparently may not bring a federal tort action.
See generally Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 128 S.
Ct. 831, 169 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2008) (holding that prison officials
who negligently lost property during transfer of prisoner are
immune from suit) .
4