Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05561/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05561-0/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)

---

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Maldonado561dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARMEN ROY MALDONADO, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5561 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(Docket No. 4)

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the instant habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court notes that Petitioner filed a separate habeas action in this

Court, case no. C 06-5560 JF (PR), challenging his parole revocation proceeding. In the

instant petition, Petitioner alleges that the California Department of Corrections failed to

respond to his grievance requests and investigate his complaint concerning his gang

affiliation and resulting gang restrictions while in prison. The Court notes that Petitioner

is curently out of custody. The Court will DISMISS the instant petition without prejudice

and DENY Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 

\\\ 

**Original filed 3/7/07**

Case 5:06-cv-05561-JF Document 5 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Maldonado561dis 2

DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court has declined to address whether a challenge to a condition of

confinement may be brought under habeas. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6

(1979); Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 519

U.S. 918 (1996). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “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) (implying that claim, which if successful would “necessarily” or “likely”

accelerate the prisoner’s release on parole, must be brought in a habeas petition). The

preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of

confinement should be brought in a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d

573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (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).

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the instant habeas action because Petitioner’s

claims do not challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner

alleges that the Department of Correction’s failed to respond to his grievance requests and

investigate his complaint concerning his gang affiliation and resulting gang restrictions

while in prison. Petitioner’s claims are more appropriately addressed in a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

 CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Petitioner may re-file his claims in a new action under a civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §1983 on the enclosed form. Petitioner shall include supporting documentation

of his prison appeal with his new complaint as the instant case will be closed. 

\\\

\\\

Case 5:06-cv-05561-JF Document 5 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Maldonado561dis 3

Based on the dismissal, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 4) is

DENIED as moot. No filing fee is due. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions

and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

3/7/07

Case 5:06-cv-05561-JF Document 5 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Maldonado561dis 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Carmen Roy Maldonado, Jr.

460 California Street, Apt # 9

Salinas, CA 93906

Case 5:06-cv-05561-JF Document 5 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 4