Taylor v. Rendon et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. C-11-1386 TEH (PR)

JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
RENDON, et al.

15

Respondents.

16

/

17
18

Petitioner Jeffrey Lamont Taylor, a state prisoner

19

incarcerated at California State Prison - Corcoran, has filed a writ

20

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that prison

21

officials at Salinas Valley State Prison were deliberately

22

indifferent to his serious medical needs, and that the prison

23

officials’ actions constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

24

Specifically, Petitioner appears to be challenging the prison

25

officials’ failure to provide him with a neoprene knee brace, a back

26

brace, and hearing aids, and the health issues resulting from this

27

failure.

28

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Doc. ## 2 and 4.

1
2

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Petitioner’s challenges to the conditions of his

4

confinement are DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a civil rights

5

complaint under 42 USC § 1983.

6

addressed whether a challenge to a condition of confinement may be

7

brought under habeas, see Bell v Wolfish, 441 US 520, 526 n6 (1979),

8

the Ninth Circuit has held that habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a

9

Section 1983 action proper, where, as here, a successful challenge

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s

11

sentence.

12

see also Badea v Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil

13

rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of

14

confinement); Crawford v Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n1 (9th Cir

15

1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that

16

challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in

17

civil rights complaint).

Although the Supreme Court has not

See Ramirez v Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003);

18

The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions as moot,

19

enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

DATED

9/29/2011
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.11\Taylor-11-1386-dism-hc-as-cr.wpd

2