Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01096/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01096-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES FLEETWOOD HUMDY, JR.,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT A. HORE, Warden, and

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents. /

No. C 08-1096 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

AND DISMISSING CASE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner says that he has

converted to Judaism and that prison authorities refuse to provide him with kosher meals,

food suitable for Jewish festivals, and the services of a rabbi. 

If petitioner prevails here it will not affect the length of his incarceration. This means

this his claim is not the proper subject of a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil

rights case under Section 1983. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)

(habeas corpus action proper mechanism for challenging “legality or duration” of

confinement; civil rights action proper method for 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 petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. In the time that

has passed since 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; for civil rights cases,

Case 4:08-cv-01096-PJH Document 6 Filed 04/08/08 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

$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(a)(2). A prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas

petition for which he or she would not have to prepay 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 court were to construe the

petition as a civil rights complaint, the case will be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner

filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of the above.

CONCLUSION

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 3 on the docket) is

GRANTED. Petitioner’s prisoner trust account statement has now been filed, so his motion

for the court to intervene to obtain it (document number 5) is DENIED as moot.

2. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new civil rights case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\HUMDY1096.DSM.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-01096-PJH Document 6 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 2