Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01695/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01695-0/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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1695_dism iss.w pd, 82410 -1- 10cv1695

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENIN GARCIA, Civil No. 10-1695 LAB (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

GEORGE NEOTTI, et al.,

Respondents.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with

the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition must be

submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions approved by the

Court. Presently, Petitioner has submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on a nonapproved form. 

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 08/24/10 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

 Petitioner has already filed a § 1983 complaint in this court,10cv1187 BEN (RBB). 1

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1695_dism iss.w pd, 82410 -2- 10cv1695

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

Upon review of the Petition, it also appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents.

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; 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 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 § 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; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12

(10th Cir. 1997). 

It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or

length of his custody. Petitioner’s main complaint is that he was found guilty of a rules 1

violation. Petitioner admits, however, that he did not lose any credits as a result of the violation.

(See Pet. at 3.) Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas because they do not challenge

the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser, 411 U.S.

at 500; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies only to

collateral attacks on state court judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D.

Ariz. 1974).

In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States. 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 exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4,

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled

to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal rights.

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 08/24/10 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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1695_dism iss.w pd, 82410 -3- 10cv1695

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with

leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the validity of a state court conviction via a

habeas corpus action, he must submit, no later than October 25, 2010: (1) a copy of this Order

with the $5.00 fee OR with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee; AND (2) a First

Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. If Petitioner

wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he must file a new civil complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a new civil case number. THE CLERK OF

COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS FORM, A BLANK FIRST AMENDED PETITION FORM, AND

A BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983

TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 3