Gonzalez v. Uribe

Filing 3

ORDER (1) Granting Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) And (2) Dismissing Petition Without Prejudice: The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. The Court dismisses t his case without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. It is hereby adjudged that judgment be entered dismissing the petition and the action. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/24/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

-/

13SEP24 p" 1 -8
:

2

~

3

i

4

!t,

,. '1

oJ

.}

r. ~ ~

J, :

T \: \ II J;' f

:- "" ~'.

i.. ;

Qi)JICr

5

J" 'ti ,,,

DEPUT Y

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAIME GONZALEZ,

Civil No.

12

Petitioner,

13

14

17
18

19

ORDER: (1) GRANTING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND

v.

DOMINGO URIBE, Warden,

15
16

13-2111 WQH MDD

Respondent.

(2)DISMISSING PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma
paupens.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

20
21

Petitioner has $.02 on account at the California correctional institution in which
he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court

22

GRANTS Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner
23

24
25
26
27

28

to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to
prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court
shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS
Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims
-1­

13 cv2111

1

Petitioner presents. Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in prison.

2

Petitioner claims that prison officials improperly destroyed his personal property,

3

specifically a radio. (See Pet. at 18.) He asks that his radio be repaired or replaced. (See

4 Pet. at 27.) Petitioner's claim is not cognizable on habeas because it does not challenge
5 the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser
6

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85

7

(1994). "Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state court judgments."

8

McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284,285 (D. Ariz. 1974).

9

In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution

10

or laws or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

11

Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]fit plainly appears from

12

the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled

13

to relief in the district court." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the

14 petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas reliefbecause he has not
15

alleged that the state court violated his federal rights.

16

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ

17

ofhabeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions ofconfinement

18

are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S.

19

at 488-500. When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration ofhis physical

20

imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate

21

release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of

22

habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a

23

state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison

24

life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States

25

Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). It appears that Petitioner

26

challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of his custody.

27

Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254.

28

-2-

13cv211 J

CONCLUSION

1

2

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request to proceed in

3

forma pauperis. The Clerk ofthe Court shall file the Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus

4

without prepayment ofthe filing fee. Further, the Court DISMISSES this case without

5 prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. IT IS HEREBY
6

ADJUDGED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING THE PETITION AND

7

THE ACTION.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
9

10

DATED:

11

12

Willia
. Hayes
United Stat s District Judge
Copies to:

ALL PARTIES

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3­

I3cv211 I