Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02572/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02572-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FITE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 07-2572 LKK GGH P

vs.

R.J. SUBIA, Warden,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, has filed a document styled

“Motion for court order to release movant from custody due to prison over-crowding.” No other

pleadings have been filed by the plaintiff. 

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254,

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 

1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief

turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 

1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam).

In this case, plaintiff appears to be seeking a remedy available only via a petition

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, that is, release from prison custody, but based on

Case 2:07-cv-02572-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

an allegedly unconstitutional condition of confinement, prison overcrowding, for which only an

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the appropriate vehicle. Plaintiff is informed, should he

seek to proceed by way of a civil rights complaint that, of itself, prison overcrowding does not

constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1249 (9 Cir. th

1982)(“[o]vercrowding itself is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment[’] but “can, under

certain circumstances, result in specific effects which can form the basis for an Eighth

Amendment violation.”) 

Plaintiff will be granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice OR, as petitioner, to file a petition that complies with

the Rules Governing Section 2254 petitions. Should plaintiff file a civil rights complaint on the

form to be provided, he must also submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, the

application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the filing

fee in the amount of $350.00. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Should plaintiff file a

petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on the form to be similarly provided, plaintiff, as

petitioner, must also either pay the $5.00 filing fee for filing a habeas application or file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Once plaintiff has filed an amended complaint or a

petition, as appropriate, the court will determine whether this action must be re-designated as a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s “motion,” construed as a defective complaint, is dismissed with

leave to amend within thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; OR a petition which conforms with the Rules

Governing Section 2254 petitions. The amended complaint or petition must bear the docket

Case 2:07-cv-02572-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

number assigned this case. Plaintiff shall also submit, within thirty days from the date of this

order, the application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court,

or the filing fee, in the case of an amended complaint, in the amount of $350.00, or, in the case of

a habeas petition, in the amount of $5.00. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result

in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a

civil rights action, the court’s form for filing a habeas petition and the application to proceed in

forma pauperis by a prisoner.

DATED: 12/19/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/cm

fite2572.noc

Case 2:07-cv-02572-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3