Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00526/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00526-0/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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0526 dismiss.wpd, 32311 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DAYNE BRIDGEMAN, Civil No. 11-0526 AJB (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

GEORGE A. NEOTTI, Warden

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner 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. 

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.

Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in prison. While somewhat difficult to

discern, it appears Petitioner claims he was denied access to the law library and that his legal

mail is not being given to him. (Pet. at 6-9.) Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on habeas

Case 3:11-cv-00526-AJB-RBB Document 2 Filed 03/23/11 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 1

Petitioner currently has a case pending in this Court filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in case

number 11cv0387 JLS (CAB).

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0526 dismiss.wpd, 32311 -2-

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]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.

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; challenges to conditions of confinement 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 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. 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.1

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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave

to amend for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and state a cognizable claim

on habeas corpus. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement by

attacking his state court conviction, he must, no later than May 31, 2011: (1) file a First

Case 3:11-cv-00526-AJB-RBB Document 2 Filed 03/23/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0526 dismiss.wpd, 32311 -3-

Amended Petition AND (2) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR submit adequate proof of his inability

to pay the fee. If he wishes to challenge the conditions of his prison life, he must, no later than

May 31, 2011: (1) file a new civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given

a new civil case number, AND (2) pay the $350 filing fee OR file a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis . THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, A BLANK FIRST AMENDED

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION FORM (28 U.S.C. § 2254) AND A BLANK 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 CIVIL COMPLAINT FORM TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-00526-AJB-RBB Document 2 Filed 03/23/11 Page 3 of 3