Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02768/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02768-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Allen840trans.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER SCOTT ALLEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

J.B. WALKER, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1840 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner, a California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated below, this court will TRANSFER the

instant petition.

Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition. However, petitioner alleges that he is

challenging his conditions of confinement. A writ of habeas corpus is not a proper vehicle to

challenge conditions of confinement unrelated to the fact or duration of confinement. See

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 855 (9th Cir. 2003). A section 1983 action is a proper remedy

for a state prisoner constitutionally challenging the conditions of his prison life rather than the

fact or length of his custody. Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 855; see Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574

(9th Cir. 1991) (challenges to conditions of confinement by state prisoners should be presented

in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus petition).

Even assuming this court has subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks personal jurisdiction. 

*E-FILED - 8/2/10*

Case 2:10-cv-02768-GEB -GGH Document 3 Filed 08/02/10 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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Allen840trans.wpd 2

The acts complained of occurred in Sacramento and the petitioner is located at California State

Prison, Sacramento, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. 

Therefore, venue properly lies in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The clerk shall transfer the entire file to the

Eastern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

7/30/10

Case 2:10-cv-02768-GEB -GGH Document 3 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2