Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04076/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04076-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLO ANTONIO DEL CONTE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEAN BORDERA, Warden, California 

Institute for Men, 

Respondent.1

Case No. 15-cv-04076-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with the assistance of his mother, 

a non-attorney to whom he has granted power of attorney, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Due to 

an inadvertent administrative docketing issue, the Petition and associated motions were not ruled 

upon until now. The Court regrets the delay. For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses the 

petition without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights complaint, and denies the pending 

motions as moot.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose 

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order 

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from 

the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

 

1

 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court substitutes the Santa Clara 

County Sheriff as Respondent because he is Petitioner’s current custodian. 

Case 3:15-cv-04076-EDL Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 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 Californi

a

Summary dismissal is appropriate where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims 

 Petitioner alleges that he is an incarcerated gay man infected with the Human 

Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”). Though the basis for Petitioner’s claim is somewhat unclear, it 

appears that his petition is based on alleged mistreatment by other inmates and corrections 

personnel during the course of his confinement, including an attack by another prisoner, racial and 

ethnic slurs and derogatory comments relating to his sexual orientation by guards, denial of 

necessary medication causing a dangerous chemical withdrawal, refusal to transfer him to a 

different housing unit, lost property and mail delays, and denial of medical and psychiatric 

consultation prior to an improper transfer of facilities. Petitioner contends that this alleged 

mistreatment has violated his Due Process rights and the Americans With Disabilities Act and 

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under federal and state law. 

 Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the 

“legality or duration” of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). This 

petition for habeas relief does not attempt to challenge either Petitioner’s conviction or the length 

of his sentence, though the petition does request that Petitioner be released from state custody to 

the custody of his mother. Days after filing his petition, Petitioner also filed a “Motion for 

Immediate Visitation and Release to Mother’s Custody” and a request for an expedited hearing on 

the Motion containing the same basic allegations and demands as the Petition, as well as an 

additional demand for visitation rights. Though Petitioner demands his release, he does not 

challenge his underlying conviction or allege that he has exhausted his state court remedies with 

respect to any such challenge.2

 Further, he provides no legal basis for the Court to Order his 

release from state custody as a remedy for the alleged civil rights violations. Where, as here, a 

 

2

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), federal courts may not grant a writ of habeas corpus brought 

by a person in state custody unless “the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the 

courts of the State.” See Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Case 3:15-cv-04076-EDL Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 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 Californi

a

successful challenge to a prison condition or to action by an outside party will not necessarily 

shorten the prisoner’s sentence, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper vehicle 

and habeas jurisdiction is absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003); see 

also Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is the proper method of 

challenging conditions of confinement). 

 In appropriate cases, the Court may convert a flawed habeas petition into a civil rights 

action. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), superseded by statute on other 

grounds as stated in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006); see also Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 

728, 729-30 (9th Cir.1974) (“Despite the labeling of his complaint, he was, therefore, entitled to 

have his action treated as a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act.” (citation omitted)). 

However, conversion is not appropriate here. 

 First, there is no indication that Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies as 

required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Further, the 

congressionally mandated filing fee for a prisoner civil rights complaint is currently $400.00 in 

contrast to the $5.00 filing fee for habeas petitions. While a civil rights action may proceed 

despite the prisoner’s inability to prepay the entire filing fee if he is granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), he must still agree to pay the entire filing fee in 

installments, even if his complaint is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2); 

Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, Petitioner has neither paid the 

$400.00 fee to file a civil rights action nor has he filed an IFP application. 

 The Court dismisses the Petition without prejudice so that Petitioner has the opportunity to 

decide whether he wishes to incur the $400.00 filing fee and raise his claims through a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Jones v. Haws, No. CV 0806309 PSG (FFM), 2009 

WL 4015432, at * 3 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 2009) (“Because of the filing fee requirements of the 

PLRA, its provisions requiring sua sponte review of complaints, and its limits on the number of 

actions a prisoner may be permitted to file in forma pauperis, a prisoner should not be obligated to 

proceed with a civil rights action unless it is clear he or she wishes to do so.”). 

CONCLUSION

Case 3:15-cv-04076-EDL Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 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 Californi

a

 For the foregoing reasons, this Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner is 

advised that his claims should be brought, if at all, in a federal civil rights action, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, rather than as a habeas petition. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions 

and close the file. 

 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 

that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its ruling. 

See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not shown 

that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural [rulings].” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c). Accordingly, a COA is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 26, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-04076-EDL Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 Page 4 of 4