Givens v. Knipp

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 04/25/12 ordering petitioner's petition is dismissed with leave to amend. The clerk of the court shall send petitioner both a blank petition for writ of habeas corpus and a blank prisoner ci vil rights complaint form. Petitioner shall choose whether he will proceed in this action with a habeas petition appropriately challenging a conviction or whether he will file a complaint to proceed in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 USC 1983. Petitioner shall file his amended pleading within 30 days of the date of service of this order. Petitioner shall also submit on the form provided by the clerk of the court within 30 days from the date of this order, a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, with the required certifications, or the appropriate filing fee. The clerk of the court shall also send petitioner a new form application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID EUGENE GIVENS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. CIV S-12-0688-CMK-P Petitioner, vs. ORDER W. KNIPP, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action in propria persona. Petitioner 18 initiated this action with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 Petitioner, however, clearly states in his petition that he is not challenging his conviction, but is 20 challenging the conditions of his confinement, specifically his medication treatment. As he 21 initiated this action with a habeas petition, the court classified it as such. If plaintiff’s intention 22 was to initiate a civil rights action, that classification will need to be modified. 23 Before this action can proceed either way, however, petitioner’s fee status must be 24 resolved. The court notes that petitioner has not filed a complete application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis, along with the certifications. In addition, before the court could grant such a motion, it 26 has to be determined what type of action petitioner is pursuing so the court can determine the 1 1 appropriate filing fees. 2 When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of 3 confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is 4 entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ 5 of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); 6 see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 7 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of 8 confinement, as opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights 9 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement, and 42 11 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement. 12 While it appears petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement, 13 as he is challenging receipt of the appropriate pain medication, he chose to initiate this action 14 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus. To challenge the conditions of his confinement, 15 plaintiff chose the wrong form to initiate these proceedings.1 The Clerk of the Court will be 16 directed to provide petitioner with both a new habeas petition as well as a civil rights complaint, 17 and petitioner will be required to choose how he wishes to proceed and file an amended pleading. 18 Petitioner must choose whether he is proceeding in this action on a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus or will be filing a civil rights complaint. Either way, his amended petition 20 or complaint must be filed within the time provided in this order. Petitioner is warned that 21 failure to file the appropriate pleading within the time provided in this order may be grounds for 22 dismissal of this action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); see 23 24 25 26 1 The court notes the possibility that plaintiff may be attempting to avoid the issue of whether he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis in this action because he has filed, on three or more prior occasions, actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To the extent this is plaintiff’s intention, filing a habeas action to avoid dismissal is not the appropriate remedy. 2 1 also Local Rule 110. Petitioner is also warned that if he files a complaint which fails to comply 2 with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 3 See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with leave to amend; 6 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send petitioner both a blank petition for writ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 of habeas corpus and a blank prisoner civil rights form complaint; 3. Petitioner shall choose whether he will proceed in this action with a habeas petition appropriately challenging a conviction or whether he will file a complaint to proceed in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 4. Petitioner shall file his amended pleading within 30 days of the date of service of this order; 5. Petitioner shall also submit on the form provided by the Clerk of the 14 Court, within 30 days from the date of this order, a complete application for leave to proceed in 15 forma pauperis, with the required certifications, or the appropriate filing fee; and 16 17 6. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to send petitioner a new form Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner. 18 19 20 21 DATED: April 25, 2012 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?