Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02266-0/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\EJD\HC.15\02266Brown_dism(hc-cr).wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE O. BROWN,

Petitioner,

 v.

S. SHERMAN, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-02266 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a California inmate currently incarcerated at California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below, the

instant petition will be dismissed. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner is a legally blind prisoner. Petitioner is not challenging his

conviction. He appears to be suing the prison where he is incarcerated for failing to

comply with the court-approved remedial plan and assign Petitioner to housing that

complies with either the Americans for Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the “uniform

accessibility requirements [of] Section 504.” (Pet. at 5.) 

It is well established in this circuit that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a §

Case 5:15-cv-02266-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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\EJD\HC.15\02266Brown_dism(hc-cr).wpd 2

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). The preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit also 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). Here, Petitioner’s claim that the prison is violating the terms of a

court-ordered consent decree and is violating the ADA, if successful, would not

necessarily shorten his sentence. Accordingly, the petition goes entirely to the

conditions of his confinement, and success in this action would not necessarily affect

the duration of his confinement. 

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

attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action 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 $350.00

civil action filing fee to pursue his claims. 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 created by the different

Case 5:15-cv-02266-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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\EJD\HC.15\02266Brown_dism(hc-cr).wpd 3

filing fees and the absence of information on the habeas form. 

CONCLUSION

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, after he has

exhausted California’s prison administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

If Petitioner chooses to file a civil rights complaint, he should choose the

appropriate venue for his complaint. Venue generally is proper in a judicial district

in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in

which the district is located; (2) 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) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction,

if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b). California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility is located in Corcoran,

California, in Kings County, which is in the Eastern District of California. Id. at §

84(b).

The Clerk is instructed to include two copies of the prisoner civil rights

complaint form to Petitioner with a copy of this order. 

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

7/1/2015

Case 5:15-cv-02266-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 3