Miramontes v. Worland et al

Filing 12

ORDER Granting 4 Motion to Dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
67; 1983, preferably using the court's civil rights complaint form, after he has exhausted California's prison administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Clerk is instructed to include two copies of the prisoner civil rights complaint form to Petitioner with a copy of this order. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/16/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Form Habeas Complaint) (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2014)

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

RODOLFO MIRAMONTES,
Petitioner,

12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.

14

G. D. LEWIS, Warden,
15

Respondent.
16

No. C 13-03555 EJD (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

(Docket No. 4)

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, Respondent’s motion to dismiss

21

the petition, (Docket No. 4), is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND

22
23

Petitioner is not challenging his criminal conviction, but rather the fact that

24

prison officials validated him as a prison gang associate when he arrived at North

25

Kern State Prison, and thereby placed him in the security housing unit (“SHU”) in

26

June 2011. (Pet. at 8.)

27

Petitioner filed habeas petitions in the state courts, with the California

28

Supreme Court denying review. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas
Order Granting MTD
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\03555Miramontes_grant-mtd.wpd

1

petition on July 31, 2013.
DISCUSSION

2
3

Petitioner challenges his validation as a gang prison associate and placement
in the SHU. Petitioner claims that his right to procedural due process was violated

5

during the gang validation process. Respondent asserts that the petition must be

6

dismissed because Petitioner’s claim is based solely on the California Supreme

7

Court case, People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal.3d 260, 269 (1979). (Mot. at 2.) As such,

8

Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the

9

petition should be dismissed for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. (Id. at 3.) Be

10

that as it may, the petition should be dismissed for the following reasons as well.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

4

It is well established in this circuit that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a §

12

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

13

necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859

14

(9th Cir. 2003). The preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit also has been that

15

challenges to conditions of confinement should be brought in a civil rights

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

basis that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil

20

rights complaint). Here, Petitioner’s claim that he was unconstitutionally confined

21

in the SHU based on an invalid gang validation, if successful, would not necessarily

22

shorten his sentence. Accordingly, the petition goes entirely to the conditions of his

23

confinement, and success in this action would not necessarily affect the duration of

24

his confinement.

25

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

26

attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

27

1983, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the Court declines to

28

do so here. The difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights
Order Granting MTD
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\03555Miramontes_grant-mtd.wpd

2

1

complaint is that the two forms used by most prisoners request different information

2

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

3

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

4

the habeas petition form rather than the civil rights complaint form include the

5

potential omission of intended defendants, potential failure to link each defendant to

6

the claims, and potential absence of an adequate prayer for relief.

7

Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00

8

civil action filing fee to pursue his claims. While a prisoner may think he has found

9

a loophole that allows him to avoid paying the $350.00 filing fee by filing in habeas,
the loophole proves unhelpful because he ultimately cannot proceed in habeas and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

will be charged the $350.00 filing fee to proceed with actions challenging conditions

12

of confinement. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow prisoners to file

13

civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every such case, including this

14

one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to deal with

15

the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence of information on

16

the habeas form.
CONCLUSION

17
18

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

19

This action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to

20

Petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preferably using the

21

court’s civil rights complaint form, after he has exhausted California’s prison

22

administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

23
24
25

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 No. 4.

26
27

DATED:

9/16/2014

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

28
Order Granting MTD
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\03555Miramontes_grant-mtd.wpd

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODOLFO MIRAMONTES,

Case Number: CV13-03555 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.
9/17/2014
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.

Rodolfo Miramontes AH4941
Pelican Bay State Prison
P. O. Box 7500
Crescent City, CA 95532-7000
Dated:

9/17/2014

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

/s/ By: