Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01769/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01769-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\HC.04\morris1769dismissal.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN HOWARD MORRIS,

Petitioner(s),

 v.

WARDEN MCGRATH,

Respondent(s). /

NO. C 04-01769 JW 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner is challenging

“custody points.” 

BACKGROUND

A judicial decision from Del Norte County is attached to the writ of habeas corpus and

indicates that Petitioner was convicted for murder in Sonoma County in 1982. Petitioner alleges that

his custody points were calculated in 1989; that in 1999, his custody points were raised without

conducting a hearing; that in the same year, he noticed that his custody points were in error and

therefore requested a correction; and that Respondent failed to make the correction due to “time

constraints.” He believes that Respondent’s conduct constitutes a violation of the due process

Case 5:04-cv-01769-JW Document 12 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\HC.04\morris1769dismissal.wpd

2

clause. He filed the instant federal habeas corpus petition May 5, 2004.

DISCUSSION

Custody point calculations determine where an inmate is incarcerated. As such, Petitioner’s

challenge to his custody point calculation is a challenge to a condition of confinement. The

Supreme Court has declined to address whether a challenge to a condition of confinement may be

brought under habeas. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6 (1979); Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d

301, 304 n.2 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 918 (1996). However, the Ninth Circuit

has held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge

to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334

F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (implying that claim, which if successful would “necessarily” or

“likely” accelerate the prisoner’s release on parole, must be brought in a habeas petition). The

preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of confinement should

be brought in a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil

rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d

890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to

terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint).

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this habeas action because Petitioner’s claim does not

challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner alleges that his custody

points have been miscalculated and that he was deprived of a hearing. 

 CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new

action under a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on the enclosed form. However,

Petitioner is advised that the writ of habeas corpus filed in this action does not contain enough

information for the Court to determine whether there Petitioner might have a meritorious civil rights

claim. Therefore, if Petitioner chooses to file a new case, Petitioner’s new civil rights complaint

must set forth more information. In addition, if Petitioner chooses to file a new case, he shall

Case 5:04-cv-01769-JW Document 12 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\HC.04\morris1769dismissal.wpd

3

include supporting documentation of his prison appeal with his new complaint because the instant

case will be closed. The Clerk shall close the file. 

Dated: April 24__, 2006 JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01769-JW Document 12 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\HC.04\morris1769dismissal.wpd

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

John H Morris

Mule Creek State Prison

P. O. Box 409000

Ione, Ca 95640

Dated: April _25_, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-01769-JW Document 12 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4