Henderson v. Muniz
Filing
7
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT. The Clerk is instructed to include 2 copies of the prisoner civil rights complaint form to Petitioner with a copy of this order. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/30/2017. (NOTE: AMK mailed 2 copies of form complaint and a copy of this order on petitioner) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOHN DELL HENDERSON,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
Case No. 17-03790 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISAL; DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AS MOOT
WILLIAM L. MUNIZ, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
(Docket Nos. 2 & 6)
17
18
Petitioner, a California inmate, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising claims regarding his medical treatment at Salinas
20
Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Petitioner paid the filing fee. (Docket No. 5.) For the
21
reasons discussed below, the instant petition will be dismissed.
22
23
DISCUSSION
24
Petitioner states that the petition is “not regarding criminal proceedings.” (Pet. at
25
3.) Petitioner claims that SVSP medical personnel have “abruptly rescinded [his] ADA
26
rights and safeguards… violating U.S. 14th and 1st and 8th Amendment guarantees.” (Id.
27
at 5.)
28
It is well established in this circuit that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983
1
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
The preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit also has been that challenges to conditions of
4
confinement should be brought in a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d
5
573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of
6
confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming
7
dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to terms and conditions of
8
confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint). Here, Petitioner’s claim that
9
prison officials violated his constitutional rights with respect to his medical care, if
successful, would not necessarily shorten his sentence. Accordingly, the petition goes
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
entirely to the conditions of his confinement, and success in this action would not
12
necessarily affect the duration of his confinement.
13
Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the
14
conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see
15
Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the Court declines to do so here. The
16
difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms
17
used by most prisoners request different information and much of the information
18
necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed here.
19
Examples of the potential problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than
20
the civil rights complaint form include the potential omission of intended defendants,
21
potential failure to link each defendant to the claims, and potential absence of an adequate
22
prayer for relief.
23
Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00 civil
24
action filing fee to pursue his claims. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow
25
prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every such case,
26
including this one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to
27
deal with the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence of information
28
2
1
on the habeas form.
2
CONCLUSION
3
4
For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED
5
without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
6
preferably using the court’s civil rights complaint form, after he has exhausted California’s
7
prison administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
8
Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 6), is
9
DENIED as moot since he paid the filing fee, (Docket No. 5). Petitioner’s motion to
10
appoint counsel, (Docket No. 2), is DENIED as moot by the dismissal of this action.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
The Clerk is instructed to include two copies of the prisoner civil rights complaint
form to Petitioner with a copy of this order.
13
This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 6.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
10/30/2017
Dated: _____________________
________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.17\03790Henderson_dism(hc-cr).docx
25
26
27
28
3
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?