Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04329/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04329-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAUNO A. KOIVISTO,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-04329-RS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a

challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner’s incarceration. A review of 

petitioner’s filings (in particular the amended petition) shows that petitioner sets forth 

claims against state actors regarding the conditions of confinement — specifically medical 

care — rather than challenging the lawfulness or duration of his confinement. Therefore, 

if petitioner prevails here it will not affect the length of his incarceration. This means that 

his claim is not the proper subject of a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil rights 

case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas 

corpus action proper mechanism for challenging “legality or duration” of confinement; 

civil rights action proper method for challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. 

Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-892 & 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 

Case 3:19-cv-04329-RS Document 19 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 19-cv-04329-RS

2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

rights complaint). 

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 petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. Since the time 

when 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; for civil rights cases, however, 

the fee is now $400 ($350 if pauper status is granted) 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). 

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 

$400 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 is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner 

filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of the above. The Clerk shall enter 

judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March___, 2020

_________________________

 RICHARD SEEBORG

 United States District Judge

10

Case 3:19-cv-04329-RS Document 19 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2