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)

Download PDF
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

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?