Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02944/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02944-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

D. L. RUNNELS,

Respondent. ________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-2944 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On July 19, 2005, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking

expungement of infractions placed in his record while he was incarcerated in the San Mateo

County Jail, and alleging the subject infractions caused his classification score in the state

prison system to increase by sixteen points. 

The petition did not allege, however, that the infractions had any impact on the fact

or duration of petitioner’s sentence, such as by causing him to lose time credits. See Docken

v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding challenges implicating fact or

duration of confinement must be brought by way of habeas petition); Ramirez, 334 F.3d at

859 (holding “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”). 

Consequently, in an order filed October 18, 2005, the Court dismissed the petition and

Case 3:05-cv-02944-MMC Document 12 Filed 05/09/06 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

granted petitioner leave to file an amended petition “to allege any impact the challenged

infractions have had on the fact or duration of his confinement, such as the loss of time

credits.” Petitioner was cautioned: “Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action

without prejudice to petitioner’s bringing the claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

On February 6, 2006, petitioner filed a document titled “Civil Complaint 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 Amended Complaint,” in which he reiterates his claims that the infractions are

unlawful, but again fails to allege that he lost time credits or that the duration of his custody

was otherwise affected by the challenged infractions. Filing a civil rights complaint in the

present action was not an option made available to petitioner. Rather, his choices were

either to file an amended petition, if he could allege in good faith that the challenged

infractions affected the fact or duration of his custody, or to file a civil rights complaint in a

new action. As it appears from the allegations in the above-referenced complaint that the

challenged infractions did not result in a loss of time credits or otherwise affect the duration

of petitioner’s custody, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to

petitioner’s bringing his claims in a civil rights complaint filed in a separate action.

Any pending motions are hereby terminated. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02944-MMC Document 12 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2