Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02611/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02611-2/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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2611-DenyExtension.wpd, 3110 -1- 09cv2611

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHADALE L. WILLIAMS, Civil No. 09cv2611-DMS (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL

JUDGMENT

v.

HEDGPETH, A., Warden,

Respondent.

On November 4, 2009, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court for the Eastern

District of California. (Doc. No. 1) The case was subsequently transferred to this Court because

Petitioner appeared to be challenging a disciplinary proceeding which occurred while he was

confined in the Southern District of California. (Doc. No. 2.)

On December 1, 2009, the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice because

Petitioner had failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and had failed to allege exhaustion of

state court remedies as to any claim presented in the Petition. (Doc. No. 6.) The Petition was

dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner to file a First Amended Petition which alleged

exhaustion of his state court remedies on or before January 11, 2010, and requiring him to satisfy

the filing fee provision by that date. (See 12/1/09 Order at 1-3.) Petitioner was specifically

warned that if he was unable to allege exhaustion of his state court remedies by January 11,

2010, and he still wished to pursue his claims in a habeas petition, he would have to start over

Case 3:09-cv-02611-DMS-WVG Document 9 Filed 03/01/10 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

1

 Petitioner appears to allege that the refusal of prison authorities to change his single-cell

status due to his sexual orientation violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

(Pet. at 5-5f.) Petitioner was informed that 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, whereas

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). Petitioner was also informed

that 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.

2

 Petitioner apparently presented his claim to the state supreme court in response to the

dismissal of this action. According to the California Supreme Court website, Petitioner filed a habeas

petition on December 15, 2009. See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov (last visited Feb. 26, 2010); see also

Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (court may take judicial notice of relevant state

court documents).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2611-DenyExtension.wpd, 3110 -2- 09cv2611

by filing a new petition which would be assigned a new civil case number. (See id. at 3.) In

addition, because it appeared that Petitioner had not even attempted to exhaust his state court

remedies prior to initiating this action, and appeared to be presenting a claim challenging the

conditions of his confinement rather than his continued incarceration, the dismissal was without

prejudice to Petitioner to present his claims in a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which

generally does not require exhaustion of state court remedies.1

 (See id. at 2-3.) 

On December 17, 2009, Petitioner submitted a copy of his inmate trust account, which

demonstrated that he had no funds on account at the institution where he was housed, apparently

in an attempt to demonstrate his inability to pay the filing fee. (Doc. No. 7.) Rather than file

an amended petition alleging exhaustion of state court remedies, however, he filed the instant

Motion for an Extension of Time. (Doc. No. 8.) 

Because Petitioner does not appear to be challenging his continued incarceration, and

because it appears that he failed to exhaust his state court remedies prior to initiating this action,

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for an extension of time to file an amended petition.2

Rather, Petitioner was warned that failure to allege exhaustion of state court remedies by January

11, 2010, would result in his having to initiate new habeas proceedings if he wished to proceed

pursuant to § 2254, or to initiate a civil rights complaint if he wished to proceed with his claims

pursuant to § 1983. 

Case 3:09-cv-02611-DMS-WVG Document 9 Filed 03/01/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2611-DenyExtension.wpd, 3110 -3- 09cv2611

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for an Extension of Time.

[Doc. No. 8]. This action REMAINS DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth

in the Court’s December 1, 2009 Order of dismissal. Furthermore, because Petitioner did not

amend his petition in a timely manner, and for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s

December 1, 2009 Order of dismissal, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment of

dismissal of this case without prejudice. Petitioner remains free to present his claims in a new

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if he wishes, which will be given a

separate civil case number.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:09-cv-02611-DMS-WVG Document 9 Filed 03/01/10 Page 3 of 3