Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01799/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01799-0/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

-1- 10cv1799

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL L. BRYANT, JR., Civil No. 10cv1799-MMA (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Petitioner, an inmate at the San Diego County Jail proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing

fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed

until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the

Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

Although the Court would ordinarily provide Petitioner an opportunity to satisfy the filing

fee requirement, it is clear that Petitioner’s claim is not properly brought in a habeas action.

Petitioner states that he is suing the State of California and the San Diego County Jail for the

sum of ten million dollars because they refuse to provide him with medication which was

proscribed to him by his doctor prior to his incarceration, because it is abused by other inmates.

(Pet. Attachment at 1-2.) Petitioner does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement

or seek an immediate or speedier release from custody.

Case 3:10-cv-01799-MMA-WVG Document 2 Filed 08/31/10 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

-2- 10cv1799

In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), the Court considered the potential overlap

between federal habeas actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and challenges to the conditions of

confinement pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that habeas is the exclusive remedy

for a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and the relief he seeks is

a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that

confinement, even though the claim may also come within the literal terms of section 1983. Id.

at 488-500. On the other hand, a section 1983 action is a proper avenue for a prisoner who is

making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his incarceration, but not to the fact or

length of his custody. Id. at 499.

The Supreme Court has therefore concluded that prisoners must use habeas corpus “when

they seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement – either directly through an injunction

compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily

implies the unlawfulness of the State’s custody,” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005),

and that claims which, if successful, would not entitle Petitioner to release from custody, are

cognizable under section 1983. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997); see also

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644. 671 n.4 (2005) (“the single, defining feature setting habeas cases

apart from other tort claims against the State is that they ‘necessarily demonsrat(e) the invalidity

of the conviction.’”) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481-82 (1994).) In Edwards

the Court found that a prisoner’s claim for an injunction barring future unconstitutional

procedures did not fall within federal habeas. Id. at 648. In addition, monetary damages are not

an available remedy in a habeas action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974); Preiser,

411 U.S. at 493. 

Accordingly, because Petitioner is not seeking immediate or speedier release from

custody, but is seeking monetary damages and prospective injunctive relief in the form of an

order directing the jail to provide him with his medication, his claim should be brought, if at all,

in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, although the Court dismisses this

action without leave to amend, Petitioner is free to file a separate civil rights action pursuant to

§ 1983, if he wishes.

Case 3:10-cv-01799-MMA-WVG Document 2 Filed 08/31/10 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

-3- 10cv1799

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED for failure to satisfy the filing fee

requirement. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner to proceed in a separate civil rights

Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if he wishes, which will be given a separate civil

case number. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California

Civil Rights Complaint form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01799-MMA-WVG Document 2 Filed 08/31/10 Page 3 of 3