Taylor v. Martel et al

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 4/24/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2012)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

RONALD EVANS TAYLOR,

7
8
9

Petitioner,

MICHAEL MARTEL, et al.,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Respondents.
/

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

10

12

No. C 12-1108 JSW (PR)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The claims in the petition do not challenge
Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. Rather, the petition simply objects to a document
placed in his prison file because it falsely states that Petitioner is related to another
inmate.
“Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to
imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the
Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges
to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province
of habeas corpus." Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). Petitioner’s claims
involve the conditions of his confinement and not the fact or duration of his confinement.
As such, they are not the proper subject of a habeas action. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218
F.3d 647, 650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil
rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v.
Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition
on basis that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil
rights complaint).

complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Although the Court may

3

construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. Since the

4

time when the Wilwording case was decided there have been significant changes in the

5

law. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars, and if leave to

6

proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For civil rights cases, however,

7

the fee is now $350 and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act the prisoner is

8

required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions from

9

income to the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A prisoner who might

10

be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have to pay a filing fee

11
For the Northern District of California

In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983

2

United States District Court

1

might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $350 fee would be

12

deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil rights complaint

13

which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a

14

“strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases.

15

In view of these potential pitfalls for Petitioner if the petition were construed as a

16

civil rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

17

civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of the above. Furthermore, Petitioner has

18

failed to make a substantial showing that his claims amounted to a denial of his

19

constitutional rights and that a reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of his

20

claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently,

21

no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

22

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

DATED: April 24, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

27
28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
RONALD EVANS TAYLOR,

Case Number: CV12-01108 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
MICHAEL MARTEL et al,

9
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

12 District Court, Northern District of California.
13 That on April 24, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
14

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16
17 Ronald Evans Taylor H-14836
San Quentin State Prison

18 3-W-44-L

San Quentin, CA 94974

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: April 24, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk