Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05389/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05389-0/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, 

Petitioner,

 v.

MIKE EVANS, Warden, 

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5389 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE

CLERK

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison in Soledad, California, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed a motion seeking leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, which is now GRANTED (docket no. 3). The petition is directed to the

actions of prison officials in cancelling one of Petitioner’s prisoner administrative appeals,

resulting in his claim not being appealable to the highest level of administrative review in

order for Petitioner to exhaust his claim raised therein.

Petitioner’s claims do not involve the fact or duration of his confinement, hence

they are not the proper subject of a habeas action. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647,

650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights

action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599

F.2d 890, 891-92 & 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 rights

complaint). 

The Supreme Court has declined to address whether a challenge to a condition of

confinement may be brought under habeas. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6

Case 3:07-cv-05389-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 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

2

(1979); Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 519

U.S. 918 (1996). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent,

and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not

necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th

Cir. 2003).

A district court may construe a habeas petition attacking conditions of confinement

as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S.

249, 251 (1971). However, although the court may construe a habeas petition as a civil

rights action, it is not required to do so. Since 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, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. 

For civil rights cases, however, the fee is $350 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 his or her prisoner account. In view of this, this case will be dismissed

without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of

the above. As such, the Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/29/07 _________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05389-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2