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 Petitioner claims that SVSP medical personnel have “abruptly rescinded [his] ADA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