Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01406/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01406-0/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 \11cv1406_rev-hec k .w pd, 62911 -1- 11cv1406

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY BERRINGER, Civil No. 11-1406 LAB (BGS)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS

CORPUS

vs.

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

On June 23, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not filed a request 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 STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

Upon review of the Petition, it 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.

Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in prison. Petitioner details his history

of mental illness, drug abuse, and incarceration, but does not challenge the validity of his state

court conviction. (See Pet. at 6-9.) Petitioner has attached a 602 form from the prison in which

he is incarcerated, however, which alleges that prison officials are interfering with his medical

Case 3:11-cv-01406-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 06/29/11 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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv1406_rev-hec k .w pd, 62911 -2- 11cv1406

treatment and are not acknowledging or treating his suicidal tendencies. (Pet. at 12.) He asks

“to be placed in a state mental hospital as soon as possible.” (Id.) 

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. 

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.

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

of his custody.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition without prejudice. If

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which

will be given a new civil case number. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a

Case 3:11-cv-01406-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 06/29/11 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 \11cv1406_rev-hec k .w pd, 62911 -3- 11cv1406

blank motion to proceed in forma pauperisform and a blank Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01406-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 06/29/11 Page 3 of 3