Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01586/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01586-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER, Civil No. 13cv1586-BTM(PCL)

Petitioner, ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS

CORPUS; and

(2) DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

vs.

DIR. DEPT. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS,

et al.

Respondent.

On July 5, 2013, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a Motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

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

Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. 

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. Petitioner states he challenges as "unconstitutional" his

"conditions of confinement," in particular "Respondent's involuntary housing policy." 

Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on habeas because it does not challenge the constitutional

validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1586 Rev. Deny IFP & Dismiss.wpd, 71513 -1- 13cv1586

Case 3:13-cv-01586-BTM-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 3
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

500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies only to

collateral attacks on state court judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D.

Ariz. 1974). Petitioner does not claimhis state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4,

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled

to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal rights.

When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical

imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release

or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. 

See Preiser, 411 U.S. Id. at 500. On the other hand, challenges to conditions of confinement are

brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 499-500. A § 1983 action

is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions

of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; see Hill v. McDonough,

547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006). Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact

or length of his custody. Thus, he has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254.

IMPROPER VENUE

Petitioner is raising a conditions of confinement claimwhile incarcerated at the California

Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California. That facility is located in Riverside County in the

Central District, Eastern Division. The Southern District is an improper venue in which to bring

Petitioner's condition of confinement claim. Accordingly, if Petitioner wishes to pursue his

claim, he must do so by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Central District,

Eastern Division that comports with the rules of that district and the filing fee requirements for

initiating a civil complaint.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS REQUEST IS MOOT

Petitioner filed a Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanying his habeas

petition. However, as venue is improper in this judicial district, and the case is dismissed for

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1586 Rev. Deny IFP & Dismiss.wpd, 71513 -2- 13cv1586

Case 3:13-cv-01586-BTM-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 3
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

failure to state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus, his request to prosecute his habeas petition

without being required to prepay fees or costs or to post security is moot. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis as moot and DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable

claim on habeas corpus. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED

DISMISSING THE PETITION AND THE ACTION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

CC: ALL PARTIES

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1586 Rev. Deny IFP & Dismiss.wpd, 71513 -3- 13cv1586

Case 3:13-cv-01586-BTM-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/15/13 Page 3 of 3