Nwaonumah v. Spearman

Filing 15

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

DAVID A. NWAONUMAH,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-04196-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

M. E. SPEARMAN,
Respondent.

Dkt. No. 11

12
13

Petitioner David A. Nwaonumah seeks federal relief from a prison disciplinary

14

decision. When he filed this action, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was a possible

15

method by which to obtain such relief. This is no longer so. Now, the federal relief he

16

seeks can be obtained only through a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

Nettles v. Grounds, No. 12-16935, 2016 WL 4072465, at *6 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en

18

banc) (claims regarding prison disciplinary decisions are not within “the core of habeas

19

corpus” and now must be brought under section 1983, “if at all”).

20

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

21

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

22

construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so, and there have

23

been significant changes in the law since Wilwording was decided that would be adverse to

24

Nwaonumah if I did so. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars; for

25

civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $400. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

26

a prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of

27

deductions from income to the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). A

28

prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have

1

to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $400

2

fee would be deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil rights

3

complaint that is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim counts as

4

a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases.
An additional consideration militates against this Court construing the petition as a

6

section 1983 suit. The petition does not name a defendant against whom the section 1983

7

claims could properly be asserted. Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005).

8

It names the warden, not the officers who allegedly deprived Nwaonumah of his

9

constitutional rights. The potentially proper defendants would appear to be the prison

10

officers directly involved in the disciplinary proceeding. Nwaonumah should name as

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

defendants the state actors he believes liable for the alleged constitutional deprivation.
In view of the potential pitfalls for Nwaonumah if the Court were to construe the

12
13

petition as a civil rights complaint, and the failure to name proper defendants, I will

14

DISMISS this action without prejudice to his filing a section 1983 action if he so chooses.1
Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 11), which rests on habeas law, is

15
16

DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 11, enter judgment in favor of

17

respondent, and close the file.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: September 22, 2016
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

It appears Nwaonumah exhausted his claims using the prison’s grievance system.
Because claims must be exhausted prior to filing suit, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Nwaonumah
may file a civil rights complaint immediately if he wants.
2