Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00595/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00595-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN T. MOSQUEDA,

Petitioner,

 v.

FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-00595 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND 

This case was commenced when Petitioner filed a document

captioned "Petition For A Writ of Habeas Corpus." Petitioner

challenges his indeterminate placement in the Pelican Bay State

Prison Security Housing Unit (SHU) based on his validation as a

gang member. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief

overturning his validation as a gang member and ordering his

release from the SHU. Petitioner has also filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This 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). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be

granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

Case 4:10-cv-00595-CW Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 7
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 are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76

(1977)).

B. Petitioner's Claim

Petitioner alleges his Fourteenth Amendment rights were

violated when he was validated as a gang member and placed in the

SHU for an indeterminate period based on alleged gang symbols on a

calendar that was found in his cell. As noted, Petitioner seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief that would overturn his gang

validation and compel his release from the SHU.

Petitioner's claims are not cognizable in federal habeas

corpus. "'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.'" Hill v. McDonough,

547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quotation and citation omitted). "An

inmate's challenge to the circumstances of his confinement,

however, may be brought under § 1983." Id. While the Supreme

Court has not addressed whether a challenge to a condition of

confinement may be brought in habeas corpus, see Docken v. Chase,

393 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004), 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). In particular, where, as here,

Case 4:10-cv-00595-CW Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 7
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

3

a petitioner's successful challenge to his administrative

segregation will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence,

habeas jurisdiction does not lie. See id. Accordingly, Petitioner

may not proceed with his claim by way of federal habeas corpus and

the petition is DISMISSED. 

Where a prisoner files a habeas petition attacking the

conditions of his confinement the district court may construe such

petition as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). The Court will

not do so here, however, unless Petitioner affirmatively informs

the Court that he wants this case to proceed as a civil rights

action. Specifically, because § 1983 cases filed by prisoners are

subject to certain statutory requirements of which Petitioner

should be aware before deciding to proceed with a § 1983 action,

the Court will not construe the petition as a § 1983 action without

Petitioner's consent. In particular, § 1983 cases filed by

prisoners are subject to a requirement that the claims be

administratively exhausted. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Further,

such cases are subject to a $350.00 filing fee, rather than the

$5.00 dollar filing fee for habeas cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a),

and the fee must be paid even if IFP status is granted, by way of

deductions from the prisoner's trust account until the full $350.00

fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). For these reasons,

Petitioner might not seek to have the instant action treated as a

§ 1983 case. 

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with leave to amend to

allege a § 1983 action. Should Petitioner fail to do so, the case

will be dismissed without prejudice.

Case 4:10-cv-00595-CW Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 7
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

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's case is DISMISSED with

leave to amend. Petitioner must file his complaint no later than

thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Petitioner must

write the case number for this action -- Case No. C 10-00595 CW

(PR) -- on the form and complete all sections of the form. 

Petitioner is particularly directed to name as defendants each

person who caused a violation of his constitutional rights and

explain what each person did to cause the violation. Liability

under § 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation

by the defendant. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989). There is no respondeat superior liability under

§ 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that a supervisor is

responsible for the actions or omissions of his or her subordinate. 

See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (liability

may be imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only if

plaintiff can show that defendant proximately caused deprivation of

federally protected right).

Because Petitioner originally filed this case as a habeas

corpus action, his IFP application (docket no. 2) is DENIED without

prejudice to filing a new application or paying the full filing

fee. As mentioned above, the filing fee for a civil rights action

is $350.00. Petitioner must pay the $350.00 filing fee, or file an

application for leave to proceed IFP, before this action can

proceed. If Petitioner is a prisoner who alleges that he is unable

to pay the full filing fee at the time of filing, he must submit:

(1) an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets he

possesses, and (2) a certified copy of the trust fund account

Case 4:10-cv-00595-CW Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 7
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

5

statement for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the action, obtained from the appropriate

official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2). If the district court determines

that the prisoner is unable to pay the full filing fee at the time

of filing, the prisoner will be granted leave to proceed IFP. This

means that the filing fee must be paid by way of an installment

plan, according to which the court first will assess and collect a

partial filing fee from the prisoner, and then the prisoner will be

required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the

preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account until

the full $350.00 filing fee is paid. Id. § 1915(b)(1). The agency

having custody of the prisoner is responsible for forwarding to the

court payments from the prisoner's account each time the amount in

the account exceeds ten dollars. See id. Accordingly, Petitioner

is hereby ORDERED to pay the requisite $350.00 filing fee in this

action no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 

He shall include with his payment a clear indication that it is for

the above-referenced case number, Case No. C 10-00595 CW (PR). In

the event that Petitioner is unable to pay the filing fee, he shall

submit an IFP application, trust account statement and certificate

of funds no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this

Order. 

Failure to file a completed civil rights form and to pay the

filing fee or file the requisite documents within the thirty-day

deadline shall result in dismissal of this action without

prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court shall send Petitioner a blank civil

Case 4:10-cv-00595-CW Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 5 of 7
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

G:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.10\Mosqueda0595.DWLA.wpd 6

rights form and the Court's prisoner IFP application form along

with his copy of this Order.

This Order terminates Docket no. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/25/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-00595-CW Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 6 of 7
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

G:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.10\Mosqueda0595.DWLA.wpd 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN T. MOSQUEDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRANCISCO JAQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-00595 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 25, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) amd in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

(a blank civil rights form and the Court's prisoner IFP application were mailed along with

the order to:)

Adrian Tamayo Mosqueda E-08547

D7-209-SHU

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: June 25, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:10-cv-00595-CW Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 7 of 7