Gonzalez v. Brazelton

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/3/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
URIEL GONZALEZ,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PAUL BRAZELTON,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

No. C 13-1142 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
17
U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. For the reasons
18
that follow, the Court dismisses the petition.
19
DISCUSSION
20
A.

Standard of Review

21
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
22
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
23
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose
24
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
25
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
26
cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the
27
applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.13\Gonzalez142discr.wpd

1

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

2

incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.

3

1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

4

B.

5

Petitioner’s Claims
Petitioner claims that while he was housed at the Central Training Facility, the

6

correctional staff failed to protect him. Petitioner appears to be alleging cruel and unusual

7

punishment, retaliation, and other challenges to the conditions of his confinement.

8
9

However, the petition does not attempt to challenge either the Petitioner’s conviction or
the length of his sentence. Success in this action would not result in his release or any change in

10

his sentence. Where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition or to action by an

11

outside party will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence, a civil rights action under 42

12

U.S.C. § 1983 is proper and habeas jurisdiction is absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,

13

859 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action

14

proper method of challenging conditions of confinement).

15

Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

16

conditions of his confinement or some other condition that he contends violates his constitutional

17

rights as pleading civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404

18

U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the Court declines to do so here. The difficulty with construing a habeas

19

petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms used by most prisoners request different

20

information and much of the information necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included in

21

the habeas petition filed here. Examples of the potential problems created by using the habeas

22

petition form rather than the civil rights complaint form include the potential omission of

23

intended Defendants, potential failure to link each Defendant to the claims, and potential absence

24

of an adequate prayer for relief. Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to

25

pay the civil action filing fee of $350.00 rather than the $5.00 habeas filing fee to pursue his

26

claims. The habeas versus civil rights distinction is not just a matter of using different pleading

27

forms. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow prisoners to file civil rights actions

28

on habeas forms because virtually every such case, including this one, will be defective at the
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.13\Gonzalez142discr.wpd

2

1

outset and require additional court resources to deal with the problems created by the different

2

filing fees and the absence of information on the habeas form.

3
4
5
6

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk
shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
DATED:

6/3/13

8

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.13\Gonzalez142discr.wpd

3