Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03848/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03848-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUADALUPE RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT HOREL, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-3848 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. He states clearly in the petition

that he is “not challenging his criminal conviction or sentencing in these [] proceedings,” and

indeed the substance of the petition goes to a May, 2008, state court proceeding in which his

parental rights were terminated. He contends that counsel, apparently including appellate

counsel, was ineffective. Because these claims are unrelated to the fact or duration of

petitioner’s confinement, a habeas case is not the proper way to raise them. See Moran v.

Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); 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). The petition will be dismissed. 

In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983 complaint. 

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Although the court may construe a habeas

Case 3:08-cv-03848-WHA Document 3 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 2
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

petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. In the time since the Wilwording case

was decided there have been significant changes in the law. For instance, the filing fee for a

habeas petition is five dollars, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is

forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $350 and under the Prisoner Litigation

Reform Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way

of deductions from income to the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A

prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have to

pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $350 fee would

be deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil rights complaint which is

dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a “strike” under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases. 

In view of these potential pitfalls for petitioner if the Court were to construe the petition

as a civil rights complaint, the case will be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner filing a

civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of the above.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 2 on the

docket) is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\RAMIREZ,G3848.DSM.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-03848-WHA Document 3 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 2