Bailey v. United States District Court Northern District of California

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS re 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Alexander Bailey. For the reasons state above, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED w ithout prejudice. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 3), is GRANTED. The Clerk shall send Petitioner two copies of the court's form complaint with a copy of this order to Petitioner. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/6/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/8/2012: # 1 Habeas Form Complaint) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

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

14
15

v.
U.S.D.C.,
Respondent.
/

16
17

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner,

12
13

No. C 11-04306 EJD (PR)

ALEXANDER BAILEY,

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

18

2254. Petitioner alleges that when he was housed by the U.S. Marshals from the Northern

19

District, he received treatment for mesothelioma and spinal bifida; Petitioner does not specify

20

when or where this period of confinement occurred. Petitioner wants the record of his

21

treatment plan sent to the jail, that the jail follow the treatment plan, and lastly that he “be

22

released within a 30 day supply of those medications in accordance with Federal guidelines

23

for C.J.M.H.” (Pet. at 2.) These claims are clearly challenging the conditions and terms of

24

his of confinement.

25

The Supreme Court has declined to address whether a challenge to a condition of

26

confinement may be brought under habeas. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6

27

(1979); Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S.

28

918 (1996). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a
Order of Dismissal; Granting IFP
N:\Pro - Se & Death Penalty Orders\February 2012\11-04306Bailey_dism-rem.wpd

§ 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily

2

shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)

3

(implying that claim, which if successful would “necessarily” or “likely” accelerate the

4

prisoner’s release on parole, must be brought in a habeas petition). The preferred practice in

5

the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of confinement should be brought in

6

a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights

7

action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599

8

F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that

9

challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint).

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this habeas action without prejudice because

11

Petitioner’s claims do not challenge the legality of his detainment under § 2254. Instead,

12

Petitioner’s claims concern the conditions of confinement at Santa Rita Jail. Petitioner’s

13

claims are more appropriately addressed in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

14

§1983. Petitioner may choose to file a civil rights complaint in a new case on the enclosed

15

civil rights complaint form.

16

CONCLUSION

17
18

For the reasons state above, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is

19

DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

20

(Docket No. 3), is GRANTED.

21
22
23

The Clerk shall send Petitioner two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy
of this order to Petitioner.
This order terminates Docket No. 3.

24
25

DATED: _____2/6/2012__________

___________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

26
27
28

Order of Dismissal; Granting IFP
N:\Pro - Se & Death Penalty Orders\February 2012\11-04306Bailey_dism-rem.wpd

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDER MARSHALL,

Case Number: CV11-04306 EJD

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT et al,
Defendant.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on February 8, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
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.

Alexander Bailey 873
Santa Rita Jail
5325 Broder Blvd
Dublin, CA 94568
Dated: February 8, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/ By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk