Hernandez v. Ahern et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/07/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2013)

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
ALONZO J. HERNANDEZ,

No. C-13-3314 TEH (PR)

7
Petitioner,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

GREGORY J. AHERN, SHERIFF ALAMEDA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, UNITED
STATES MARSHALS SERVICE and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

12

Respondents.

13

/

14
15

Petitioner Alonzo J. Hernandez, a federal pre-trial

16

detainee housed at The Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility (GEDDF) in

17

Oakland, California, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) challenging prison conditions,

19

specifically the denial of access to an on-site physical law library

20

at GEDDF.

21

certified as a class action consisting of a class of federal

22

pretrial inmates housed at GEDDF from October 2009 through June

23

2013.

24

petitions.

Doc. #1 at 2-3.

Petitioner also seeks to have this case

Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee for habeas

25

Petitioner’s petition must be dismissed for two reasons.

26

First, Petitioner may not bring a class action on behalf of other

27

prisoners.

28

authority to represent anyone other than himself."

"[A] litigant appearing in propria persona has no
Russell v.

1

United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962).

2

allegations that he wants to pursue a class action are dismissed

3

because pro se prisoner-plaintiffs are not adequate class

4

representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the

5

interests of a class.

6

(4th Cir. 1975).

7

of his own rights, and therefore should confine himself to such

8

allegations if he files an amended complaint.

9

who seeks to pursue a claim about a violation of his own rights must

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff's

See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407

Plaintiff may pursue claims only about violations

Any other prisoner

file his own action.

11

Second, Petitioner improperly asserts claims alleging

12

unconstitutional conditions of confinement in a habeas petition.

13

"'Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related

14

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,1

15

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat.

16

§ 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

18

province of habeas corpus.'"

19

(2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)).

20

inmate's challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however,

21

may be brought under § 1983."

22

"habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a

23

successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily

24

shorten the prisoner's sentence."

25

859 (9th Cir. 2003); Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir.

Challenges to the lawfulness

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579

Id.

"An

The Ninth Circuit has held that

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,

26
27
28

1

Because Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee, he properly brings
his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
2

1

2004) (challenges to prison conditions cognizable only via § 1983,

2

and challenges implicating the fact or duration of confinement must

3

be brought through a habeas petition); accord Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d

4

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

5

challenging conditions of confinement).

6

Petitioner's claims challenge the conditions of his

7

confinement and will not necessarily shorten his sentence if

8

successful.

9

seeks—transfer from GEDDF to another federal detention facility that

This is borne out by the relief Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

has an on-site law library.

11

in a civil rights complaint, not in a habeas petition.

12

the instant petition is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner

13

raising his claims in a civil rights complaint that he files in a

14

new case.2

Therefore, these claims must be brought
Accordingly,

15

The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions as moot,

16

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

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

DATED

10/07/2013
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.13\Hernandez 13-3314-dism-hc-as-cr.wpd

26
27
28

2

A civil rights complaint against federal defendants is properly
brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
3