Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01714/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01714-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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 - 07CV1714 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY LEE BRIDGES JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV1714 WQH (BLM)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

J.L. NORWOOD,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

On September 5, 2007, Petitioner filed the present case, styled a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. # 1). Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at United

States Penitentiary (USP) Victorville in Adelanto, California, alleges that his life is in danger, and

seeks transfer to either another federal prison or to a state prison in California. Petition (Pet.) at 14-16.

Petitioner also seeks to have surgery to repair a hernia, and alleges that the Bureau of Prisons is

improperly denying him the surgery. Pet. at 17.

DISCUSSION

I. Bivens Action as Opposed to a Habeas Proceeding

28 U.S.C. § 2241 allows a prisoner to challenge an underlying conviction or a sentence in a

habeas proceeding. “However, where a Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his

confinement, his claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus action.”

Jennings v. Shultz, CV F 05-0549 OWW DLB HC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36172, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jun.

10, 2005); see also Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991). “In the federal context,

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides

[Petitioner] with a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors.” Id. 

After reviewing Petitioner’s claims and allegations, the Court concludes that Petitioner seeks

to challenge the conditions of his current confinement. Accordingly, the Court will construe

Case 3:07-cv-01714-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 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 - 07CV1714 WQH (BLM)

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as a Bivens civil rights action. See Brooks v. Schultze,

C 99-5423 MEJ (PR), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3223, *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2000).

II. Venue

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action founded on federal question jurisdiction may

be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the

same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or

(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action

may otherwise be brought. Here, Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Adelanto, California, and

challenges the conditions of his confinement at USP Victorville in Adelanto. Petitioner names as the

Respondent/Defendant the prison warden, and notes that the warden resides in Adelanto, California.

Adelanto, California, is located in San Bernardino County, and is within the territorial limits

and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern

Division, not the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(c)-(d). As the Petition does not allege that a Defendant resides in the Southern District of

California, and as it is clear that none of the events described in the Petition occurred in the Southern

District of California, the Court concludes that venue is not proper in the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406, “the district court of a district in which is filed a case laying

venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such

case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d

1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992). Given that this action is improperly styled as a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court concludes that dismissal of this action is the proper

at this time.

CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is properly construed

as a Bivens action. However, the Court concludes that venue is improper in the Southern District of

California under the facts alleged. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action without

Case 3:07-cv-01714-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 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 - 07CV1714 WQH (BLM)

prejudice and with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. If Petitioner chooses to refile this

case, he should refile in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern

Division. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 13, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01714-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3