Woodis v. Morales et al

Filing 3

ORDER: (1) Dismissing Case without Prejudice; and (2) Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 3/30/2016.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENO WOODIS,

Case No.: 16CV686 BEN (JLB)
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER:

v.
JOHN D. MORALES, et al.,

15

(1) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE;
Respondents.
(2) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS MOOT

16
17
18
19

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of

20

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a motion to proceed in forma

21

pauperis. Petitioner lists his court of conviction as Fresno Superior Court, which is

22

within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern

23

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). He is currently incarcerated at Valley State

24

Prison, located in Chowchilla, CA, Madera County, which is also within the jurisdiction

25

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Id.

26

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

27

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of

28

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims
1
16CV686 BEN (JLB)

1

Petitioner presents. Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing while he is

2

incarcerated which focus on the failure of prison staff to protect him from other inmates.

3

(See Pet. at 6-9, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas because

4

they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28

5

U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512

6

U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state court

7

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

8

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

9

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997).

18

It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the

19

fact or length of his custody. In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction

20

violates the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules

21

Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f

22

it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

23

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

24

Here, it is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas

25

relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal rights.

26

If Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he must file a

27

civil rights complaint pursuant to § 1983. Petitioner is advised that if he seeks redress for

28

events which occurred while he was incarcerated at Valley State Prison, in Chowchilla,
2
16CV686 BEN (JLB)

1

California, located in Madera County, where he is currently incarcerated, the United

2

States District Court for the Eastern District of California is the proper court for purposes

3

of venue, not the United States Court for the Southern District of California.

4
5
6

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court is dismissing this case without prejudice and without leave to amend,
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

7
8
9
10
11

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and
DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2016

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16CV686 BEN (JLB)