Felts v. Noonan

Filing 2

ORDER Screening and Dismissing Petition. The petition is dismissed without prejudice. This order does not prevent Felts from filing a civil complaint raising the same claims. If he wishes to file his complaint in this action, he must do so no later t han April 22, 2015. He must also pay the required filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis no later than April 22, 2015. Or, if he wishes, he may bring his civil rights claims by filing a separate action. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/3/15.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NORMAN PAUL FELTS,

CASE NO. 15cv684-LAB (NLS)
Petitioner,

12

ORDER SCREENING AND
DISMISSING PETITION

vs.
13

WARDEN NOONAN,

14

Respondent.

15
16
17

Petitioner Norman Felts, a prisioner in federal custody, filed this petition for writ of

18

habeas corpus and paid the $5 filing fee required for habeas petitions. The Prison Litigation

19

Reform Act requires the Court to screen pleadings filed by prisoners and to dismiss them to

20

the extent they are frivolous or malicious or fail to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

21

and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

22

The petition does not challenge the fact of Felts’ confinement, but rather the conditions

23

of his confinement. Felts seeks access to a law library and an opportunity to communicate

24

more easily with his attorney. He asks that the Court order him transferred to the

25

Metropolitan Correctional Center so he can use the library there and use email to

26

communicate with his attorney. Habeas petitions are limited to challenges to the length or

27

legality of confinement. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006). Challenges to

28

conditions of confinement are properly brought as civil rights actions. See Preiser v.

-1-

15cv684

1

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484–86 (1973). See also Alcala v. Rios, 434 Fed. Appx. 668,

2

669–70 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court properly construed petition challenging the

3

conditions of prisoner’s confinement as a civil rights action, not a habeas petition); Greenhill

4

v. Lappin, 376 Fed. Appx. 757, 757 (9th Cir. 2010) (same).

5

While a court has discretion to construe a mislabeled habeas corpus petition as a civil

6

rights action, it is inappropriate to do so here. See Johnson v. Fed’l Bureau of Prisons, 2013

7

WL 3467208, at *2 (C.D.Cal., July 9, 2013) (explaining that construing habeas petition as civil

8

rights action may have negative consequences for the petitioner/plaintiff). Furthermore, Felts

9

has only paid the filing fee for a habeas petition, not the $350 fee required for civil actions.

10

Because it is clear Felts cannot amend his petition to allege new facts making out a

11

habeas claim, it is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This order does not prevent Felts

12

from filing a civil complaint raising the same claims. If he wishes to file his complaint in this

13

action, he must do so no later than April 22, 2015. He must also pay the required filing fee

14

or move to proceed in forma pauperis no later than April 22, 2015. Or, if he wishes, he may

15

bring his civil rights claims by filing a separate action.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 3, 2015

18
19

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

15cv684