Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00139/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK SMITH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERRAL ADAMS,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0139 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Ths is a habeas case filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se under 28 U.S.C.

2254. 

A federal court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

In his petition, petitioner claims that he has been denied outgoing mail, had property

confiscated, and been denied access to the law library. The preferred practice in the Ninth

Circuit is that challenges to conditions of confinement be brought in a civil rights complaint,

not in a habeas petition. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding civil rights

action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d

890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that

challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint). 

Case 3:10-cv-00139-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Moreover, “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful

challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner’s claims must be brought in a civil rights

complaint not a habeas petition because petitioner is challenging the conditions of his

confinement, not the fact or duration of his custody, and success on his claims will not shorten

his sentence. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner refiling

his claims in a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 

CONCLUSION

This habeas petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\SMITH0139.DSM.wpd 

Case 3:10-cv-00139-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2