Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06791/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06791-0/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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY ANTHONY FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-6791 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, he alleges that he has been denied access to

judicial records that he wants to use in his parole proceedings. The court records in question

apparently are those for one of petitioner's co-defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court

and the records have been sealed by order of that court. Petitioner disputes the correctness of

the state court's order sealing the records and contends that it violates some First Amendment

right he has. 

The petition does not attempt to challenge either the petitioner's conviction or the length

of his sentence. Success in this action would not result in his release or any change in his

sentence. Where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition or to action by an outside

party will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 is proper and habeas jurisdiction is absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859

(9th Cir. 2003); see also Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action

proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-

Case 3:06-cv-06791-SI Document 2 Filed 12/20/06 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

2

92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because challenges to terms and

conditions of confinement must be brought as civil rights complaint). 

Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

conditions of his confinement orsome other condition that he contends violates his constitutional

rights as pleading civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404

U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the court declines to do so here. The difficulty with construing a habeas

petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms used by most prisoners request different

information and much of the information necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included

in the habeas petition filed here. Examples of the potential problems created by using the habeas

petition form rather than the civil rights complaint form include the potential omission of

intended defendants, potential failure to link each defendant to the claims, and potential absence

of an adequate prayer for relief. Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to

pay the civil action filing fee of $350.00 rather than the $5.00 habeas filing fee to pursue his

claims. The habeas versus civil rights distinction is not just a matter of using different pleading

forms. A habeas action differs in many ways from a civil rights action: (1) a habeas petitioner

has no right to a jury trial on his claims, (2) the court may be able to make credibility

determinations based on the written submissions of the parties in a habeas action, (3) state court

(rather than administrative) remedies must be exhausted for the claims in a habeas action, (4) the

proper respondent in a habeas action is the warden in charge of the prison, but he or she might

not be able to provide the desired relief when the prisoner is complaining about a condition of

confinement or (as here) an event unrelated to the prison, and (5) damages cannot be awarded

in a habeas action. While a prisoner may think he has found a loophole that allows him to save

$345.00 – by filing a habeas petition with a $5.00 fee rather than the usual $350.00 fee for a civil

action – the loophole proves unhelpful because he ultimately cannot proceed in habeas and will

be charged the $350.00 filing fee. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow prisoners

to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every such case, including this one,

will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to deal with the problems

Case 3:06-cv-06791-SI Document 2 Filed 12/20/06 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

3

created by the different filing fees and the absence of information on the habeas form. 

For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without

prejudice to petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preferably using the

court's civil rights complaint form. The court has not determined whether there would be a

viable claim for relief even if the claim was presented in a civil rights complaint. The clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06791-SI Document 2 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 3