Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01011/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

i

tr.M»

i

LED

ItHMfSO PH

f—A1

2

3

4

5 m6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 BOBBY SHAWN LOCKHART, Case No.: 17cvl011 BEN(KSC)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13 v.

14 ALLEN, Grievance Coodinator, et al.

15

Respondents.

16

17 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

18

19

Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute

the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or

costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk ofthe Court will file the

Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus without prepayment ofthe filing fee.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 Upon review ofthe Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims

Petitioner presents. Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in custody.

27

28

l

17cvl011 BEN(KSC)

Case 3:17-cv-01011-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
11*”-

Specifically, Petitioner claims: his access to courts has been interfered with, his Freedom

ofInformation Act rights are being violated, and he has been denied medical care. (Pet.

at 1-7, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas review. Challenges

to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are

brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents ofthe Federal

Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the “federal analogue” to § 1983. Hartman v.

Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, 255 n.2 (2006). A Bivens action is the proper remedy for a

federal prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison

life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. See Prieser, 411 U.S. at 499; Bivens, 403

U.S. 388. It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions ofhis prison life, but not

the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas

claim pursuant to § 2241.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in

forma pauperis. The Clerk ofthe Court will file the Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus

without prepayment ofthe filing fee. Further, the Court DISMISSES this case without

prejudice. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail Petitioner a Pro Se Prisoner Packet

together with a copy ofimis Or/ter.

IT IS SO Q

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 DATED:

23 nited States District Court

24

25

26

27

28

2

17cvl 011 BEN(KSC)

Case 3:17-cv-01011-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2