Hawes v. RTC Grounds

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/1/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

TERRY HAWES,

9
vs.
R. GROUNDS,

(Docket No. 2)
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;
GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner,

10
11

No. C 13-1740 WHA (PR)

12

Respondent.
/

13
14

INTRODUCTION

15
16

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

17
18

ANALYSIS
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

19

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

20

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

21

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose

22

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).

23

B.

24

LEGAL CLAIMS
In 2009, petitioner was convicted in Marin County Superior Court of rape and other

25

related offenses. In his petition he claims that his First Amendment rights to freedom of

26

religion and the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state are being violated

27

because he is forced to take psychiatric medication. It is difficult to make sense of his rambling

28

and incoherent argument because there is a lengthy discussion of marijuana and medical
marijuana laws that do not appear to relate to his conviction. At best, it appears that he is

1

claiming that taking the medication violates his religion. Such a claim, even if meritorious,

2

would not would not undermine the validity of his conviction or sentence, nor would it

3

otherwise affect the fact or duration of his confinement. As such, his claim involves the

4

conditions of his confinement and should be raised in a civil rights complaint, not a habeas

5

petition. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d

6

573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of

7

confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming

8

dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement

9

must be brought in civil rights complaint).
Accordingly, petitioner does not present a claim upon which federal habeas relief can be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

granted, and the petition will be dismissed. Such a dismissal would ordinarily be without

12

prejudice to petitioner bringing his claim in a new civil rights complaint filed in a new case.

13

However, petitioner has already done so, as his claims about being forcibly medicated is now

14

pending in Hawes v. Breiner, No. C 12-2024 WHA (PR).

15

CONCLUSION

16

In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

17

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that a reasonable jurist would find the denial of

18

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

19

no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. The application to proceed in forma

20

pauperis (dkt 2) is GRANTED.

21

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
Dated: May

1

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.13\HAWES1740.DSM.wpd

2