Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02611/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02611-1/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-Dismiss.wpd, 1219 -1- 09cv2611

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

HEDGPETH, A., Warden,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice for

failing to satisfy the filing fee requirement. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

This action is also subject to dismissal because Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion of

his state court remedies. Federal habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court

conviction or the length of their confinement in state prison must first exhaust state judicial

remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To

exhaust state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme

Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal

habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly

Case 3:09-cv-02611-DMS-WVG Document 6 Filed 12/01/09 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2611-Dismiss.wpd, 1219 -2- 09cv2611

exhaust state court remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or

her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364

(1995) reasoned: “If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of

prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting

claims under the United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example,

“[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him

[or her] the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say

so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner allege that he has raised his claims in the

California Supreme Court. Instead, he indicates that he has exhausted his administrative

remedies by pursuing his claims though the prison administrative grievance procedures. (Pet.

at 5d.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must so specify.

The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner. Cartwright v.

Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

Moreover, the Court notes that Petitioner presents a claim regarding the conditions of his

confinement. Petitioner alleges 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.) He requests the Court to order the restoration of his contact visits, that his prison

file be changed to eliminate documentation relating to his “R” and “S” suffix status which will

allow him to be double-celled, and reinstatement of full program eligibility status. (Id. at 5f-5g.)

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 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 488-500 (1973). 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

Case 3:09-cv-02611-DMS-WVG Document 6 Filed 12/01/09 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-Dismiss.wpd, 1219 -3- 09cv2611

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 may wish to present his claims in a complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which generally does not require exhaustion of state court

remedies. Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 507 (1982).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to

satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to allege exhaustion of state court remedies. If

Petitioner wishes to proceed with this habeas action, he must satisfy the filing fee requirement

and file a First Amended Petition which cures the defects identified in this Order on or before

January 11, 2009. Petitioner is cautioned that if he has failed to allege exhaustion of his state

court remedies with respect to his claims on or before January 11, 2009, and still wishes to

pursue his claims through habeas corpus in this Court, he will be required to file a new habeas

petition which will be given a new civil case number. The dismissal is also without prejudice

to Petitioner to file a separate civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if he wishes,

which will be given a separate civil case number.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2009

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:09-cv-02611-DMS-WVG Document 6 Filed 12/01/09 Page 3 of 3