Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00751/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00751-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPER STEVEN BUTLER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOANP. WEBER, Warden 

Respondent. 

Civil No. 12-0751 WQH (POR) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a document which this Court liberally 

construes as a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has failed 

to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 

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. See 

Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 

Further, upon review of etition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2 4 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner 

presents. Although Petitioner's claims are not entirely clear, they appear to relate to distressed 

securities bonds, and liens. Petitioner's claims are not cognizable because they not challenge 

the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. 

K:ICOMMON'IEVUYONEI_EFlLE-PROSElWQHI12c¥07'I-DiIInial.•42112 -1­

Case 3:12-cv-00751-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 04/25/12 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 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). 

"Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state court judgments." McGuire v. Blubaum, 

376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974). Indeed, it does not appear Petitioner is currently 

confined. 

In no way does Petitioner claim he has suffered a state court conviction which violates 

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]fit plainly appears 

from the face ofthe petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to 

reliefin the district court." Rule 4,28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that 

Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the 

state court violated his federal rights. 

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. 

When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration ofhis 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. Thus, 

Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without 

prepayment of the filing fee. Further, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for 

failure to state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT 

JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING THE PETITION AND THE ACTION. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

. / 

DATED: ----4-74T--(,IL-....oo::..J~//L...--~--

K:'COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFlLE-PROSEIWQH\llcY07!1,-DiImiII3.wpd,42J12 -2­

Case 3:12-cv-00751-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 04/25/12 Page 2 of 2