Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00984/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00984-0/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RISING, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-0984 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In his 

petition, petitioner states that he is challenging prison conditions and that his conviction is “not at 

issue.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Although it is not entirely clear, petitioner appears to allege that he was 

denied access to his legal property and medical appliances because of his race and status as a 

disabled person, in violation of his constitutional rights. See id. at 20. 

Petitioner is advised that his challenge to the conditions of his confinement may not be 

addressed in this habeas action. Habeas jurisdiction exists only for petitioners challenging the 

legality or duration of their incarceration, not the conditions of confinement. Ramirez v. Galaza, 

334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). The proper mechanism for raising a federal challenge to 

conditions of confinement is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. 

Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice 

Case 2:15-cv-00984-AC Document 5 Filed 10/08/15 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 

2

to petitioner’s right to file a § 1983 civil rights complaint. 

 WARNING: Petitioner is informed that upon filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint, he will 

be charged a $350 filing fee. Petitioner is cautioned that this court has made no determination as 

to the merits of his potential § 1983 claims and has made no findings as to whether his claims 

would survive past the screening stage, should he elect to pursue a civil rights action. 

Petitioner is further advised that prior to filing a § 1983 civil rights action, he must first 

file an administrative grievance with the prison and complete the prison grievance process in 

order to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 

U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (the PLRA requires that 

administrative remedies be exhausted prior to filing suit). See also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 

81 (2006) (exhaustion requires that the prisoner complete the administrative review process in 

accordance with all applicable procedural rules). Petitioner may then seek relief in federal court 

by filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s motion for in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot; 

2. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without 

prejudice to refilling it as a § 1983 civil rights action; and 

3. The clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 civil rights complaint 

form and the accompanying directions. 

DATED: October 7, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00984-AC Document 5 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2