Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02111/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02111-0/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)

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

-/ 

2 	 13SEP24 p" 1: -8 

~ ! t, .} J, : T \: \II J;' f 3 i ,. '1 oJ r. ~ ~ :- "" ~'. i.. ; J" 'ti ,,, 

4 Qi)JICr DEPUT Y 

6 

7 

8 	 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 	 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 JAIME GONZALEZ, Civil No. 13-2111 WQH MDD 

12 Petitioner, 

ORDER: (1) GRANTING 13 v. 	 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 DOMINGO URIBE, Warden, 

(2)DISMISSING PETITION 

Respondent. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

16 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of 

17 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 

18 

paupens. 

19 

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

Petitioner has $.02 on account at the California correctional institution in which 

21 

he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court 

22 

GRANTS Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner 

23 

to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to 

24 

prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk ofthe Court 

shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 

26 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS 

27 

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

28 

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims 

-1­ 13 cv2111 

Case 3:13-cv-02111-WQH-MDD Document 3 Filed 09/24/13 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 

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

Petitioner claims that prison officials improperly destroyed his personal property, 

specifically a radio. (See Pet. at 18.) He asks that his radio be repaired or replaced. (See 

Pet. at 27.) 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, 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). 

In no way does Petitioner claim his 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]fit 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. foIl. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the 

petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas reliefbecause he has not 

alleged that the state court violated his federal rights. 

Challenges to the fact or duration ofconfinement are brought by petition for a writ 

ofhabeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions ofconfinement 

are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. 

at 488-500. When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration ofhis 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. Id. at 500. On the other hand, 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; McIntosh v. United States 

Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). It appears that Petitioner 

challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of his custody. 

Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. 

-2- 13cv211 J 

Case 3:13-cv-02111-WQH-MDD Document 3 Filed 09/24/13 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 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

without prepayment ofthe filing fee. Further, the Court 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: 

Willia . Hayes 

United Stat s District Judge 

Copies to: ALL PARTIES 

-3­ I3cv211 I 

Case 3:13-cv-02111-WQH-MDD Document 3 Filed 09/24/13 Page 3 of 3