Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03426/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03426-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR J. BRAVO,

Petitioner,

 v.

A.P. KANE, 

Respondent.

___________________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3426 MMC (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS;

DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDATE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2, 4 & 5)

Victor Bravo, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition

for a writ of habeas corpus. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

Petitioner alleges that prison officials are violating his civil rights in various ways,

including diagnosing him with mental illness, planning to transfer him to another institution,

tampering with his mail, and unfairly disciplining him. The preferred practice in this Circuit

is that such challenges to the conditions of an inmate’s confinement be brought in a civil

Case 3:05-cv-03426-MMC Document 6 Filed 10/25/05 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

2

rights complaint, not in a habeas petition. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.

1991) (holding civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of

confinement); see also Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004); Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding 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”). As petitioner’s claims do not affect the fact

or duration of his custody, he may bring his claims in a civil rights complaint, but not in a

habeas petition.

In light of the foregoing, the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to petitioner’s raising his claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 in a civil rights action. 

In this same action, petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandate, in which he

requests that the Court order state prison officials to either comply with his demands for

improved conditions in the prison or release him from prison. Petitioner has cited no

jurisdictional basis, and the Court is not aware of any, for issuance of such a writ. The

federal mandamus statute provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction

of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United

States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361

(emphasis added). Section 1361 does not apply to the instant petition because petitioner

seeks to compel action by state prison officials, not federal officials. See, e.g., Newton v.

Poindexter, 578 F. Supp. 277, 279 (C.D. Cal. 1984) (holding § 1361 has no application to

state officers or employees). Nor does the federal All Writs Act (“Act”) provide

jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandate petitioner seeks. The Act provides, in relevant

part: "The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs

necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages

and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Under this authority, the writ of mandamus has

traditionally been used in the federal courts “only to confine an inferior court to a lawful

exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its

Case 3:05-cv-03426-MMC Document 6 Filed 10/25/05 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

3

duty to do so.” See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967) (internal quotation and

citation omitted). Here, petitioner does not seek to compel action from an inferior court,

but rather from state officials. 

Due to the absence of a jurisdictional basis for the Court to issue the writ of

mandate petitioner seeks, the petition for such a writ is DENIED.

The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 4 and 5.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2005

_____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03426-MMC Document 6 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 3