Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05098/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05098-0/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

1

 Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction on

November 28, 2014.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. ROJO,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 14-5098 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

James E. Rojo, a prisoner at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, filed a pro

se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before

the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases.1

 Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. For the

reasons stated below, Petitioner’s federal habeas petition is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for 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). 

Case 5:14-cv-05098-NC Document 6 Filed 01/08/15 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

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that when he was moved to the Richard J. Donovan facility in San

Diego, California, his property was taken. Petitioner alleges that the taking of his property

violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and the right against against unreasonable

searches and seizures. However, the petition does not attempt to challenge either Petitioner’s

conviction or the length of his sentence. In other words, success in this action would not

result in Petitioner’s release or any change in his sentence. Where, as here, a successful

challenge to a prison condition or to action by an outside party will not necessarily shorten

the prisoner’s sentence, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is proper and habeas

jurisdiction is absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action proper method of

challenging conditions of confinement). 

Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

conditions of his confinement or some other condition that he contends violates his

constitutional rights as pleading civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Wilwording

v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the court declines to do so here. The difficulty with

construing a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms used by most

prisoners request different information and much of the information necessary for a civil

rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed here. Examples of the potential

problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than the civil rights complaint form

include the potential omission of intended defendants, potential failure to link each defendant

to the claims, and potential absence of an adequate prayer for relief. Additionally, there is

Case 5:14-cv-05098-NC Document 6 Filed 01/08/15 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

doubt whether the prisoner is willing to pay the civil action filing fee of $400.00 rather than

the $5.00 habeas filing fee to pursue his claims. The habeas versus civil rights distinction is

not just a matter of using different pleading forms. It is not in the interest of judicial

economy to allow prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually

every such case, including this one, will be defective at the outset and require additional

court resources to deal with the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence

of information on the habeas form. 

Petitioner is advised that these claims should be brought, if at all, in a federal civil

rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moreover, because Petitioner’s claims occurred

at the Richard J. Donovan facility, his action should be filed in the Southern District of

California.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall

terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05098-NC Document 6 Filed 01/08/15 Page 3 of 3