Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02560/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02560-1/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

17cv2560-LAB (RBB)

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

BERIHU H. FKADU,

Petitioner,

v.

STIRLING PRICE, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv2560-LAB (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 1, 2017, Petitioner Berihu H. Fkadu, a person confined at Atascadero 

State Hospital as a result of a 1995 San Diego County Superior Court finding of not guilty 

by reason of insanity, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 1.) On 

December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit declined to consider the claims in the Petition which 

challenge the conditions of Petitioner’s confinement as not cognizable on federal habeas, 

denied authorization to file a second or successive petition challenging Petitioner’s original 

1995 commitment or any of his pre-2013 recommitment judgments, and transferred the 

Petition to this Court for filing to the extent Petitioner challenges his most recent judgment 

of commitment for which he has never sought habeas relief and for which he is not required 

to obtain authorization to file a second or successive petition. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2-3.) 

Case 3:17-cv-02560-LAB-RBB Document 5 Filed 02/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv2560-LAB (RBB)

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

On January 4, 2018, this Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice due to 

Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to state a claim 

cognizable on federal habeas. (ECF No. 2) The Court notified Petitioner that the 

allegations in his Petition regarding ongoing conditions of his confinement at Atascadero 

State Hospital, which were found by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to be not 

cognizable on federal habeas, are not at issue in this case. (Id. at 2-3.) The Court also 

notified Petitioner that it was unclear in his Petition whether he seeks to challenge his most 

recent recommitment to Atascadero State Hospital, as he had failed allege in what manner 

his most recent recommitment violated his federal rights. (Id.) The Court dismissed the 

Petition because Petitioner did not claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution 

or laws or treaties of the United States.” (Id., quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).)

Petitioner was instructed that in order to have this case reopened, he must submit the 

$5.00 fee or adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and file a First Amended Petition 

which alleges that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 

United States as a result of his most recent recommitment on or before February 28, 2018. 

Petitioner has now filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and a First Amended 

Petition. (ECF Nos. 3-4.)

Petitioner has $0.02 on account at the institution in which he is presently confined 

and cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced 

action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being 

required to post security. 

However, the First Amended Petition once again fails to allege Petitioner is in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States as a result 

of his most recent recommitment proceedings. Rather, as he did in his original Petition, 

and as this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals informed him was not permissible

on federal habeas, Petitioner once again alleges that the conditions of his confinement at 

Atascadero are abusive. (ECF No. 3 at 6-9.) 

Case 3:17-cv-02560-LAB-RBB Document 5 Filed 02/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv2560-LAB (RBB)

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

The First Amended Petition suffers from the same defect as the original Petition, a 

failure to claim that, as a result of his most recent recommitment proceedings, Petitioner is 

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth in this Court’s previous Order of dismissal, as 

well as the Order of the Ninth Circuit transferring the Petition to this Court, Petitioner’s 

challenge to the conditions of his confinement are not cognizable on federal habeas. See

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973) (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.) 

Because Petitioner has twice been informed of the requirement that if he wishes to 

proceed with a habeas petition in this Court he must allege that his most recent 

recommitment proceedings violated his rights under the Constitution or laws or treaties of 

the United States but has failed to do so in his amended petition, and has twice been 

informed that he may not proceed with a challenge to the conditions of his confinement but 

continues to do so in his amended petition, it is now clear he does not intend to challenge 

his most recent recommitment proceedings in this action, but intends to continue to 

challenge the conditions of his confinement. As such, the First Amended Petition is 

dismissed without further leave to amend. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner 

to file a new federal habeas action which will be given a new civil case number if he wishes 

to challenge his most recent recommitment proceedings, and without prejudice to 

Petitioner to file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given 

a new civil case number if he wishes to continue his challenge to the conditions of his 

confinement. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02560-LAB-RBB Document 5 Filed 02/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3