Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01723/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01723-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD ANDREW WHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN

DISTRICT COURT OF FRESNO,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 01723 LJO WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to

dismiss a Petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it

that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” This court has conducted a

preliminary review of the petition and finds that it must be dismissed.

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). A habeas corpus petition

Case 1:07-cv-01723-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 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

is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge “the very fact or duration of his confinement,” and

where “the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier

release from that imprisonment.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

conditions of that confinement. In this case, Petitioner is not challenging his conviction, but rather

is challenging the imposition of filing fees in this court. Accordingly, the proper vehicle for

Petitioner to pursue his claims is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right

to file an appropriate civil rights action; and 

2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01723-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 2