Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00915/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00915-1/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

07cv0915

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIE DUBY, Civil No. 07cv0915-JM (JMA)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

JIM TILTON, et al.,

Respondents.

On April 30, 3007, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis, in the District Court for the Eastern District of California. Because Petitioner is

challenging a conviction from the San Diego County Superior Court, the Petition was transferred

to this Court.

On May 25, 2007, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismissed the case without prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner had failed to

name a proper respondent. (See Order dated May 25, 2007 [doc. no. 3].) Petitioner was given

until July 23, 2007 to file a First Amended Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies

outlined in the May 25, 2007 Order. (Id.)

On June 25, 2007, Petitioner sent a document to the Court which was filed as a First

Amended Petition in this case, 07cv0915. However, upon closer inspection of the document,

it appears that it is not a First Amended Petition which challenges Petitioner’s state court

Case 3:07-cv-00915-JM-JMA Document 6 Filed 07/06/07 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

07cv0915

-2-

conviction. Rather, in the document, Petitioner complains about the quality of medical care she

is receiving while incarcerated. (See doc. no. 5.) These claims are not cognizable on habeas

because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28

U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 480-85 (1994). 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, 411

U.S. at 488-500. It appears that Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of her prison life,

but not the fact or length of her custody. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition without prejudice and with

leave to amend. In order to proceed with this habeas action, Petitioner must file a Second

Amended Petition no later than August 13, 2007 which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined

in this Court’s May 25, 2007 Order. If Petitioner wishes to file a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the conditions of her confinement, she must file a separate civil

rights action which will be given a separate case number. THE CLERK OF THE COURT IS

DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK SECOND AMENDED PETITION FORM

AND A BLANK 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM ALONG WITH

THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 6, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:07-cv-00915-JM-JMA Document 6 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2