Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02851/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02851-0/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

-1- 09cv2851

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL LEGASPY, Civil No. 09-2851 BTM (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

IVES, et al.,

Respondents.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $1.18 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

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.

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02851-BTM-POR Document 3 Filed 01/27/10 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

-2- 09cv2851

Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in prison. Specifically, Petitioner he is

receiving inadequate medical care in prison. (See Pet. at 3-6.) 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 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); 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.

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, 411 U.S. at 488-500.

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. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02851-BTM-POR Document 3 Filed 01/27/10 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

-3- 09cv2851

prepayment of the filing fee. Further, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for

failure to state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT

JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING THE PETITION AND THE ACTION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02851-BTM-POR Document 3 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 3