Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01920/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01920-0/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

19cv1920-LAB (AGS)

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

WILLIAM DAWES,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv1920-LAB (AGS)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor 

submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Because this Court cannot proceed unless Petitioner either pays the filing fee or 

submits a motion to proceed in forma paupers, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice.

BASIS FOR THE PETITION

In addition, Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, he 

is a pretrial detainee who indicates he is not challenging a state court conviction in this 

action. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) Rather, he is challenging the conditions of his confinement, 

specifically, medical decisions regarding mental health treatment made during his current 

pre-trial custody. (See id. at 6-19.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01920-LAB-AGS Document 2 Filed 10/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1920-LAB (AGS)

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

Petitioner’s claims challenging the conditions of confinement are not cognizable on 

federal habeas corpus because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration 

of his confinement. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), the Court held that 

habeas is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his

confinement and where the relief he seeks is a determination he is entitled to release from 

that confinement. Id. at 488-500. Challenges to conditions of confinement are brought 

pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 499; see also Mayle v. Felix, 545 

U.S. 644, 671 n.4 (2005) (“the single, defining feature setting habeas cases apart from other 

tort claims against the State is that they ‘necessarily demonstrate[e] the invalidity of the 

conviction.’”), quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994) (holding that 

claims which “do not call into question the lawfulness of the conviction or confinement,” 

or challenge the fact or duration of custody, or “seek immediate or speedier release” from 

custody, are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.) Neither are his claims cognizable 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Wright v. Shartle, 699 Fed.Appx. 733, 733 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(holding that claims which “do not concern the manner, location, or conditions of [a] 

sentence’s execution” are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). 

Petitioner is advised that if he wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement 

he must file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be filed as a 

separate civil action and given a separate civil case number. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Petition is DISMISSED because Petitioner has not satisfied the filing fee 

requirement and has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim. The dismissal is without 

leave to amend in this case, but without prejudice to Petitioner to challenge the conditions 

of his confinement in a separate civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2019 _________________________________________

Chief Judge Larry A. Burns

United States District Court

Case 3:19-cv-01920-LAB-AGS Document 2 Filed 10/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2