Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02147/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02147-0/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

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT P. McCOWAN,

Petitioner,

v.

TRUST ACCOUNT OFFICE STAFF AND 

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 16-cv-02147-DMR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

This case was opened when Petitioner, a state prisoner at the Salinas Valley State Prison

(“SVSP”), filed a document which appears to be a California state superior court form entitled, 

“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Dkt. 1. The Clerk of the Court thus opened this case as a 

habeas corpus action. 

This action has been assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. Plaintiff has consented 

to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 4. 

The petition does not attempt to challenge either the fact of Petitioner’s conviction or the 

length of his sentence, however. Rather, it is based entirely on the conditions of his confinement. 

In fact, on the state habeas form under the section labeled, “This petition concerns,” Petitioner 

marked the box labeled, “Jail or prison conditions.” Id. at 2. He then adds: “Trust Office 

Extortion Abusing Fun[d]s.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner, who has filed previous actions in this 

court, claims that the Prison Trust Account Office is withdrawing too much money from his trust 

account to pay for his various court costs. Id. at 3, 6. He further claims that he has “been deprived 

monthly canteen also, and [has been] continuely [sic] harassed, dealing with retaliation, when [he] 

receive[s] money from [his] family.” Id. He has also filed a request for a preliminary injunction

Case 4:16-cv-02147-DMR Document 9 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

for the court to order the Prison Trust Account Office to “follow rules.” Dkt. 8 at 1. He also 

complains that he is being harassed by SVSP prison staff because he filed the instant action. Id.

However, a federal habeas petition is not the proper way to raise the aforementioned

claims. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action 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 because challenges to terms and conditions of 

confinement must be brought as civil rights complaint). In an appropriate case a habeas petition 

may be construed as a section 1983 complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). 

Although the court may construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do 

so. Since the time the Wilwording case was decided there have been significant changes in the 

law. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars, and if leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the fee is now 

$400.00 ($350 filing fee plus $50 administrative fee), and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform 

Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of 

deductions from income to the prisoner’s trust account.1 See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A prisoner 

who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have to pay a filing 

fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $350 fee would be deducted 

from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil rights complaint which is dismissed as 

malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases. 

In view of these potential pitfalls for Petitioner if the court were to construe the petition as 

a civil rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to his filing a civil rights action 

if he wishes to do so in light of the above. Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction is also 

DENIED as premature. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (motion for 

preliminary injunction cannot be decided until parties to action are served). The denial is without 

 

1

Even if the prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he or she must still 

pay the $350 filing fee (not the $50 administrative fee), but the filing fee will be taken out of his or 

her prisoner account in installments.

Case 4:16-cv-02147-DMR Document 9 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prejudice to refiling such a motion should he file a new civil rights action. 

Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 5) is GRANTED. 

Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) 

(standard for COA). 

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 5 and 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2016

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-02147-DMR Document 9 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT P. MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRUST ACCOUNT OFFICE STAFF AND 

SUPERVISOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-cv-02147-DMR 

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 October 11, 2016, 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.

Vincent P. McCowan ID: D29422

B4 / Cell 137

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: October 11, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:16-cv-02147-DMR Document 9 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 4