Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00859/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00859-0/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

JOHN MICHAEL BALBO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A HEDGPETH, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0859 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. "Federal law opens two main

avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its

duration are the province of habeas corpus." Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). 

Petitioner’s claims involve the conditions of his confinement and not the fact or duration of his

confinement. As such, they are not the proper subject of a habeas action. See Moran v.

Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); 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). 

In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983 complaint. 

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Although the court may construe a habeas

Case 3:10-cv-00859-WHA Document 4 Filed 03/30/10 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

petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. Since the time when the Wilwording

case was decided there have been significant changes in the law. For instance, the filing fee for

a habeas petition is five dollars, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is

forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $350 and under the Prisoner Litigation

Reform Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way

of deductions from income to the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A

prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have to

pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $350 fee would

be deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil rights complaint which is

dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a “strike” under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases. 

In view of these potential pitfalls for petitioner if the petition were construed as a civil

rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner filing a civil rights

action if he wishes to do so in light of the above.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\BALBO0859.DSM.wpd.

Case 3:10-cv-00859-WHA Document 4 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2