Valentine v. Lewis

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/31/2012. (Attachments: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2012)

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-11-3922 TEH (PR)

JOE LOUIS VALENTINE, JR.,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
WARDEN D. LEWIS,

15

Respondent.

16

/

17
18

Petitioner Joe Louis Valentine, Jr., a state prisoner

19

incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a petition for

20

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging prison

21

conditions.

22

Doc. #1 at 2, 4–5.

Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement:

23

his gang validation and the gang validation process.

24

Petitioner’s challenge to the conditions of his confinement by way

25

of a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without

26

prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights complaint under 42

27

U.S.C. § 1983.

28

a challenge to a condition of confinement may be brought under

Id. at 6.

Although the Supreme Court has not addressed whether

1

habeas, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6 (1979), the Ninth

2

Circuit has held that habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a 42 U.S.C.

3

§ 1983 action proper, where, as here, a successful challenge to a

4

prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s

5

sentence.

6

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

7

rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of

8

confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir.

9

1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in

11

civil rights complaint).

12

A Certificate of Appealability will be DENIED with request to

13

Petitioner’s claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Rules Governing

14

Habeas Corpus Cases § 2254, Rule 11 (requiring district court to

15

issue or deny certificate of appealability when entering final order

16

adverse to petitioner).

17

that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

18

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

19

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

20

court was correct in its procedural ruling.”

21

U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Specifically, Petitioner cannot demonstrate

Slack v. McDaniel, 529

22

The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions as moot,

23

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

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

DATED

1/31/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

28
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.11\Valentine-11-3922-dism-hc-as-cr.wpd

2