Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01355/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01355-1/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

19cv1355 GPC (BGS)

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

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MONTGOMERY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv1355 GPC (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

STAY AND ABEYANCE OF 

PETITIONER’S CLAIMS

[Dkt. No. 5.]

On July 19, 2019, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 

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

in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) On July 26, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case with leave to amend. (Dkt. 

No. 3.) In its Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s claims, alleging improper medical 

and psychiatric care, cannot be brought under a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because he does not challenge the constitutional validity or 

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

500 (1973) (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.); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). Petitioner contends 

Case 3:19-cv-01355-GPC-BGS Document 6 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1355 GPC (BGS)

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

his federal constitutional rights are being violated by prison officials because he is not 

being given proper medical and psychiatric care. (Dkt. No. 1, Pet. at 18-21, 27-68.) The 

instant motion to stay claims pending exhaustion relates to exhausting his administrative 

remedies concerning his medical care issues. Based on the initial filing and motion to 

stay, Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement and his claims must be 

brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-

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; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 

(10th Cir. 1997). In its prior order, the Court dismissed the case for failing to state a 

cognizable claim on habeas corpus and directed that if Petitioner wishes to challenge the 

conditions of his confinement, he must file a new civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a new case number. Petitioner has failed to comply 

with the Court’s order to file a new civil rights complaint. Because Plaintiff is 

challenging the conditions of his confinement, he MUST file a NEW civil rights 

complaint.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance of his 

claims. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement as alleged in 

his initial filing and in his motion for stay, he must file a new civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a new case number. The Clerk of 

Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 form together with a copy of this Order. The case shall remain dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01355-GPC-BGS Document 6 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2