Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00584/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00584-0/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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Smith879trans.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EARL SMITH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 11-0879 LHK (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal writ of habeas corpus,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It is clear, however, that Plaintiff is challenging the conditions of

confinement rather than his conviction or sentence. 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,

whereas challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42

U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). That is, 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 section 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; see also Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Habeas corpus proceedings are

Case 3:11-cv-00584-DMS-CAB Document 5 Filed 03/21/11 Page 1 of 2
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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Smith879trans.wpd 2

the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the ‘legality or duration’ of confinement. A

civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of challenging ‘conditions of . . .

confinement.’”) (citation omitted). Here, because Petitioner is attacking the conditions of his

confinement rather than his conviction or sentence, the Court construes this action as a civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971)

(recognizing that a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

So construed, a review of the complaint reveals that the acts complained of occurred in

San Diego, and Defendants are located in San Diego, which lies within the venue of the Southern

District of California. Therefore, venue properly lies in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk shall terminate all pending

motions and transfer the entire file to the Southern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/21/11 LUCY H. KOH 

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00584-DMS-CAB Document 5 Filed 03/21/11 Page 2 of 2