Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05189/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05189-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GIBBY JUAREZ, 

Petitioner,

 v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden, 

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5189 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

(Docket Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Pelican

Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is directed to the decision of prison officials to

confine him for an indeterminate term in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) at that

facility based on a “gang validation” proceeding. 

Petitioner’s claims involve the conditions of his confinement and not the fact or

duration of his confinement, hence they are not the proper subject of a habeas action. See

Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); 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 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

Case 3:06-cv-05189-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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). Therefore, Petitioner’s claims are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A district court may construe a habeas petition attacking conditions of confinement

as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S.

249, 251 (1971). However, although the Court may construe a habeas petition as a civil

rights action, it is not required to do so. Since 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 $350 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 his or her prisoner account. In view of this, this case will be dismissed

without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of

the above. As such, the Clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot (docket nos. 3,

4, 5, 6, 8), close the file and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2007 _________________________ JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05189-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2