Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03141/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03141-0/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

JOSE CARLOS LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

R. J. KIRKLAND

(warden),

Respondent. /

No. C 06-3141 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Jose Carlos Lopez, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, commenced this action by

filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he complained that his rights were violated

during proceedings to place him in administrative segregation based on his alleged affiliation

with a prison gang. The petition does not attempt to challenge either the fact of his conviction

or the length of his sentence. Rather, it goes entirely to the conditions of his confinement, and

success in this action would not result in his release from prison nor shorten his stay in prison.

Where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten

the prisoner's sentence, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is proper and habeas

jurisdiction is absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition,

the preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of confinement

be brought in a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)

(civil rights action proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell,
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

599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because

challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought as civil rights complaint).

Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

conditions of his confinement as pleading civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the court declines to do so here. The

difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms used

by most prisoners request different information and much of the information necessary for a civil

rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed here. Examples of the potential

problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than the civil rights complaint form

include the potential omission of intended defendants, potential failure to link each defendant

to the claims, and potential absence of an adequate prayer for relief. Additionally, there is doubt

whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee rather than the $5.00

habeas filing fee to pursue his claims. The habeas versus civil rights distinction is not just a

matter of using different pleading forms. A habeas action differs in many ways from a civil

rights action: (1) a habeas petitioner has no right to a jury trial on his claims, (2) the court may

be able to make credibility determinations based on the written submissions of the parties in a

habeas action, (3) state court (rather than administrative) remedies must be exhausted for the

claims in a habeas action, (4) the proper respondent in a habeas action is the warden in charge

of the prison, but he or she might not be able to provide the desired relief when the prisoner is

complaining about a condition of confinement, and (5) damages cannot be awarded in a habeas

action. While a prisoner may think he has found a loophole that allows him to save $345.00 –

by filing a habeas petition with a $5.00 fee rather than the usual $350.00 fee for a civil action

– the loophole proves unhelpful because he ultimately cannot proceed in habeas and will be

charged the $350.00 filing fee to challenge conditions of confinement. It is not in the interest

of judicial economy to allow prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because

virtually every such case, including this one, will be defective at the outset and require additional

court resources to deal with the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence of

information on the habeas form. 
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

For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without

prejudice to Lopez filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preferably using the

court's civil rights complaint form. 

In light of the dismissal of this action, the request for appointment of counsel and the in

forma pauperis application are DENIED. (Docket # 2, # 3.) 

The clerk is instructed to mail a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form to

petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2006 _______________________ 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge