Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01627/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01627-2/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

 1 The case was dismissed without prejudice on September 30, 2007, pursuant to Rule

3-11 of the Northern District Local Rules. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate

the judgment and reopen the action, which the Court granted after finding good cause for

Petitioner’s excusable neglect in his failure to update his current address based upon his

temporary stay in the Santa Clara County jail for his pending state court proceedings. 

(See Docket No. 17.) 

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.04\Ngo627_grant-mtd (cr).wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIET MIKE NGO, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. SOLIS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-01627 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Docket No. 8)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the

petition. (Docket No. 8.) Petitioner filed opposition, and Respondent filed a reply. For the

reasons described below, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling as a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 18 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 6
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.04\Ngo627_grant-mtd (cr).wpd 2

DISCUSSION

In 1989, Petitioner was sentenced to seventeen years-to-life in state prison after his

second degree murder conviction in Santa Clara Superior Court. In the instant petition,

Petitioner alleges a negative Life Prisoner Evaluation report was prepared in conjunction

with his parole hearing in 2003 before the Board of Prison Term (“Board”) and subsequent

denial of parole. Petitioner claims that this negative report was issued in retaliation for his

exercising his First Amendment rights in filing civil rights complaints, writs and grievances

at San Quentin and Avenal State Prisons. Petitioner seeks relief by having the negative

report expunged from his central prison file. 

Respondent argues the Court should dismiss the petition because it is more

appropriately brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Mot. at 2.) Respondent contends that

federal habeas relief is only available for prisoners challenging the fact or duration of

confinement, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and that no habeas jurisdiction exists for conditions

of confinement claims that will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence, see Ramirez

v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). (Id. at 3.) Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s

claims challenge his conditions of confinement because success on his claims will not

shorten his life sentence, and therefore must be brought in a § 1983 action. (Id.) 

In opposition, Petitioner claims that expunging the report could affect the decision to

grant him parole, and that the Board did in fact rely on the report to deny him parole in 2003

and 2006. (Oppo. at 2.) Respondent denies that Petitioner has shown irrefutably that the

Board relied on the report at issue to deny him parole. (Reply at 2.) Furthermore,

Respondent states that the Ninth Circuit has found that successfully overturning a

disciplinary violation would not necessarily shorten the length of a prisoner’s confinement

because the parole board still had the authority to deny parole for many other reasons. See

Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 859. Respondent contends that likewise, removing the report from

Petitioner’s central file will also likely have no affect on his parole suitability because the

Board has many other bases to deny Petitioner parole, see, e.g., Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §

2402(b)-(c). (Reply at 2.)

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 18 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 6
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

 2 But this does not mean that such a claim may not be brought in habeas as well: 

“[W]hen prison inmates seek only equitable relief in challenging aspects of their parole

review that, so long as they prevail, could potentially affect the duration of their

confinement, such relief is available under the federal habeas statute.” Docken, 393 F.3d

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.04\Ngo627_grant-mtd (cr).wpd 3

Traditionally, challenges to prison conditions have been cognizable only via 

§ 1983, while challenges implicating the fact or duration of confinement must be brought

through a habeas petition. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004). The two

remedies are not always mutually exclusive, however. Id. at 1031. The Supreme Court has

consistently held that any claim by a prisoner attacking the fact or duration of his

confinement must be brought under the habeas sections of Title 28 of the United States Code.

See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648

(1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A claim that would necessarily

imply the invalidity of a prisoner’s conviction or continuing confinement must be brought

in a habeas petition. See id.

Where an inmate challenges the constitutional validity of the state procedures used

to deny parole eligibility or parole suitability, but seeks injunctive relief in the form of an

earlier eligibility review or parole hearing rather than earlier release, the claim is cognizable

under § 1983. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005). In Wilkinson, the Court held

that prisoners’ parole claims seeking a new parole hearing need not be brought in habeas

corpus because the relief sought would not necessarily “invalidate the duration of their

confinement–either directly through an injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly

through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s

custody.” Id. at 79 (finding that the exception to § 1983 coverage for claims at the core of

habeas corpus relief in Preiser does not include procedural challenges where relief under §

1983 was left available by the Court’s subsequent holding in Wolff v. McDonald, 418 U.S.

539, 554 (1974)). See also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997) (if prisoner

wins and is entitled to parole eligibility hearing, this does not guarantee parole or necessarily

shorten his prison sentence).2

 However, a parole or time credit claim that does affect the

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 18 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 6
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 at 1028. Habeas and § 1983 are not mutually exclusive in such a case. Id. at 1031. 

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.04\Ngo627_grant-mtd (cr).wpd 4

legality or duration of a prisoner’s custody, and a determination of which may likely result

in entitlement to an earlier release, must be brought in habeas. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120

F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990),

cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991); Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989);

see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003) (implying that claim, which

if successful would “necessarily” or “likely” accelerate the prisoner’s release on parole, must

be brought in a habeas petition). 

The Supreme Court has declined to address whether a challenge to a condition of

confinement may be brought under habeas. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6

(1979); Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S.

918 (1996). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a

§ 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily

shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). The

preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit also has been that challenges to conditions of

confinement should be brought in a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573,

574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of

confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming

dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement

must be brought in civil rights complaint)

The Court finds that Petitioner’s claims do not necessarily imply the invalidity of a

his conviction or continuing confinement, and therefore does not need to be brought in a

habeas petition. See Calderon, 523 U.S. at 747. Rather, Petitioner seeks expungement of the

negative report from his file, which is a form of relief that does not necessarily “invalidate

the duration of [Petitioner’s] confinement.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 79; see also Shimoda,

131 F.3d at 824. Nor has Petitioner shown that expungement of the report would

“necessarily” or “likely” accelerate his release on parole. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 18 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 6
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 3

 The dismissal being without prejudice, the Court need not address the merits of

Respondent’s other grounds for dismissal. 

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.04\Ngo627_grant-mtd (cr).wpd 5

at 858-59. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are more appropriately addressed in a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d at 574.3

 

 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8) is

GRANTED. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Petitioner may re-file his claims in a new action under a civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

DATED: _________________________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

7/15/10

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 18 Filed 07/26/10 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIET M. NGO,

Petitioner,

 v.

J. SOLIS, Warden, 

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV04-01627 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Viet M. Ngo E-21895

CTF

POB 689

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

7/26/10

7/26/10

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 18 Filed 07/26/10 Page 6 of 6