Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02563/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02563-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE HILL, Civil No. 12cv2563-LAB (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

AMY MILLER, Warden,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, accompanied by a certified copy of his prison trust account

statement which the Court will construe as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Petition

is subject to dismissal because Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement,

alleging that his personal property has been confiscated, rather than the fact or duration of

incarceration, and his claims are therefore properly brought in a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a court with proper venue, rather than in a habeas petition filed in this Court.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he

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

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv2563-Dismiss.wpd, 102912 -1- 12cv2563

Case 3:12-cv-02563-LAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/29/12 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

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

The Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to

allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the United States,

and has therefore failed to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. Petitioner alleges that when

he was transferred from the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, California, located

in the Eastern District of California (see 28 U.S.C. § 84(b)), to Avenal State Prison at Avenal,

California, also located in the Eastern District of California (id.), certain items of his personal

property which inmates were entitled to possess at the California Correctional Institution were

confiscated because they are not allowed at Avenal State Prison. (See Pet. at 6-10.) Petitioner

purports to bring causes of action for breach of contract and violation of due process. (Id.) 

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are properly brought in a 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). When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or

duration of his or her physical imprisonment, and the relief he or she seeks is a determination

that he or she is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release, the 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 prison life, including

denial of access to personal property, but not to the fact or length of custody. Id. at 499;

McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Preiser left open the possibility of assertion of a conditions-of-confinement claim in a

habeas application where additional and unconstitutional restraints are at issue. See Preiser, 411

U.S. at 499 (“This is not to say that habeas corpus may not also be available to challenge such

prison conditions. When a prisoner is put under additional and unconstitutional restraints during

his lawful custody, it is arguable that habeas corpus will lie to remove the restraints making the

custodyillegal.”) The allegations contained in the Petition here regarding possession of personal

property are not the type of “additional and unconstitutional restraints” which are distinct from

conditions of confinement, and Petitioner’s allegations therefore do not state a claim cognizable

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv2563-Dismiss.wpd, 102912 -2- 12cv2563

Case 3:12-cv-02563-LAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/29/12 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

on federal habeas. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971); Tucker v. Carlson, 925

F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991).

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 attached exhibits that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas

relief because Petitioner has failed to state a claim cognizable on federal habeas. Petitioner is

free to present the claims alleged in the Petition in a separate civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, if he wishes. However, such a complaint should be filed, if at all, in a District

where proper venue lies, which does not appear to be the Southern District of California.1

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES

the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to state a claim cognizable on federal

habeas. The dismissal is without leave to amend but without prejudice to Petitioner to present

his claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas petition,

in a court of proper venue. 

The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

“A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may,

1

except as otherwise provided by law, 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 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow v. Weeks, 790

F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th

Cir. 1986).

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv2563-Dismiss.wpd, 102912 -3- 12cv2563

Case 3:12-cv-02563-LAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/29/12 Page 3 of 3