Carranza v. Lewis et al
Filing
8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING 6 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMAPAUPERIS; DENYING 2 , 3 , 4 OTHER MOTIONS. For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preferably using the court's civil rights complaint form, after he has exhausted California's prison administrative remedies. The Clerk is instructed to include two copies of the prisoner civil rights co mplaint form to Petitioner with a copy of this order. Motions terminated: 4 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION for Discovery MOTION for Hearing filed by Jose Carranza, 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Jose Carranza, 3 MOTION for H earing filed by Jose Carranza, 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jose Carranza., ***Deadlines terminated. 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jose Carranza. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Prisoner Complaint)(ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
JOSE CARRANZA,
Petitioner,
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
14
G. D. LEWIS, Warden,
15
Respondent.
16
No. C 12-01169 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL;
GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DENYING OTHER
MOTIONS
(Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6)
17
18
Petitioner, a California inmate currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State
19
Prison in Crescent City, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below, the instant petition will be
21
dismissed.
22
BACKGROUND
23
Petitioner states that he is not challenging his criminal conviction. (Pet. at 2.)
24
Rather, he is challenging the fact that prison officials validated him as a prison gang
25
associate in 2009, and thereby placed him in the security housing unit (“SHU”).
26
Petitioner filed habeas petitions in the state courts, with the California
27
Supreme Court denying review on January 25, 2012. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner filed the
28
instant federal habeas petition on March 8, 2012.
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.12\01169Carranza_dism(hc-cr).wpd
DISCUSSION
1
2
Petitioner challenges his validation as a gang prison associate and placement
3
in the SHU. Petitioner claims that the validation was based on insufficient evidence
4
in violation of his right to due process, and that the placement in the SHU constitutes
5
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
6
It is well established in this circuit that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a §
7
1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not
8
necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859
9
(9th Cir. 2003). The preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit also has been that
challenges to conditions of confinement should be brought in a civil rights
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action
12
is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599
13
F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on
14
basis that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil
15
rights complaint). Here, Petitioner’s claim that he is being unconstitutionally
16
confined in the SHU based on an invalid gang validation, if successful, would not
17
necessarily shorten his sentence. Accordingly, the petition goes entirely to the
18
conditions of his confinement, and success in this action would not necessarily affect
19
the duration of his confinement.
20
Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner
21
attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
22
1983, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the Court declines to
23
do so here. The difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights
24
complaint is that the two forms used by most prisoners request different information
25
and much of the information necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included in
26
the habeas petition filed here. Examples of the potential problems created by using
27
the habeas petition form rather than the civil rights complaint form include the
28
potential omission of intended defendants, potential failure to link each defendant to
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.12\01169Carranza_dism(hc-cr).wpd
2
1
2
the claims, and potential absence of an adequate prayer for relief.
Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00
3
civil action filing fee to pursue his claims. While a prisoner may think he has found
4
a loophole that allows him to avoid paying the $350.00 filing fee by filing in habeas,
5
the loophole proves unhelpful because he ultimately cannot proceed in habeas and
6
will be charged the $350.00 filing fee to proceed with actions challenging conditions
7
of confinement. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow prisoners to file
8
civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every such case, including this
9
one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to deal with
the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence of information on
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
the habeas form.
12
CONCLUSION
13
14
For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is
15
DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42
16
U.S.C. § 1983, preferably using the court’s civil rights complaint form, after he has
17
exhausted California’s prison administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
18
Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 6), is
19
GRANTED. Petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel, (Docket No. 2), for
20
an evidentiary hearing, (Docket No. 3), and for discovery, (Docket No. 4), are
21
DENIED as moot by this dismissal.
22
23
24
The Clerk is instructed to include two copies of the prisoner civil rights
complaint form to Petitioner with a copy of this order.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6.
25
26
DATED:
7/6/2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
27
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.12\01169Carranza_dism(hc-cr).wpd
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE CARRANZA,
Case Number: CV12-01169 EJD
Petitioner,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
G. D. LEWIS, Warden,
Respondent.
/
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
7/6/2012
That on
, 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.
Jose Carranza T62521
Pelican Bay State Prison
P. O. Box 7500
Crescent City, CA 9532-7500
Dated:
7/6/2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/ Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk
By:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?