Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01715-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MICHAEL BALBO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

JAMES TILTON, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

)

)

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01715-LJO-GSA-PC 

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR COURT TO RECOGNIZE

ACTION AS A PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS and DENYING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 15)

ORDER DISREGARDING NOTICE OF

APPEAL AS PREMATURE

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND A COPY

OF THIS ORDER TO THE NINTH

CIRCUIT

Plaintiff, John Michael Balbo ("plaintiff"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending is plaintiff's motion

for the court to recognize this action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus; motion for appointment of

counsel; and notice of appeal. (Doc. 15.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the complaint commencing this action on August 16, 2007, at the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 23, 2007, the court

transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and the

case was received by this court on November 28, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On January 31, 2008, the court

granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the California Department of

Corrections ("CDC") to arrange for payment of plaintiff's $350.00 filing fee by deductions from

Case 1:07-cv-01715-NVW Document 16 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 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

plaintiff's prison trust account, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b). (Doc. 13.) On March 3, 2008, plaintiff

filed a motion for the court to recognize this action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus; motion for

appointment of counsel; and notice of appeal. (Doc. 15.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Habeas Corpus Action

Plaintiff requests the court to recognize this action as a petition for habeas corpus. Plaintiff states

that he intended to file a habeas corpus action, but the prison law library did not supply the appropriate

forms when he requested them. Plaintiff also requests the court to vacate its order collecting the $350.00

filing fee for a civil rights action from plaintiff's prison trust account. Plaintiff argues that he did not

authorize the court to collect these monies from his account. Alternatively, plaintiff now authorizes the

court to collect payment of the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas corpus action. 

A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in

violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). While challenges to a state court’s incarceration of

a petitioner or the length of that incarceration are proper in a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

challenges to the conditions of prison life are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See McCarthy

v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 n.15 (1973); Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The court has thoroughly reviewed plaintiff's complaint, and none of plaintiff’s allegations

challenge his custody or the length of his incarceration. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that his

constitutional rights of access to the courts have been violated by defendants under the First, Fourth,

Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that his rights to due process and equal

protection have been violated. Plaintiff also makes vague allegations of adverse conditions of

confinement, due to alleged misconduct by prison officials in performing their job duties at the prison.

Plaintiff's allegations clearly challenge the conditions of prison life and not whether he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution. Based on the nature of plaintiff's allegations, plaintiff's action is a civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and not a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the

court shall deny plaintiff's motion for the court to recognize this action as a petition for writ of habeas

corpus.

Case 1:07-cv-01715-NVW Document 16 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 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

With regard to plaintiff's argument that he did not authorize payment of the $350.00 filing fee

from his prison trust account, plaintiff is advised that the court is required by statute to assess and collect

payment of the filing fee from prisoners who are granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil

action. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b). No authorization by plaintiff is required. Nevertheless, plaintiff did give

his authorization when he signed his application to proceed in forma pauperis and filed it with the court

on January 14, 2008. (Doc. 10.) The application, signed by plaintiff on January 5, 2007, clearly states:

"I hereby authorize the agency having custody of me to collect from my trust account and forward to the

Clerk of the United States District Court payments in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(2)."

Id. at 2. Based on these facts, the court shall deny plaintiff's request for the court to vacate its order

collecting the $350.00 filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled

that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases.

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct.

1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance

of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997).

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer

counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. 

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See Rand,

113 F.3d at 1525. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court

is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel

shall be denied.

C. Notice of Appeal

In the motion filed on March 3, 2008, plaintiff states: "[P]etitioner hereby does in fact give

formal notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. . . " (Motion at p. 8.) In this appeal,

plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel by the appellate court; plaintiff argues that he requires

representation at this juncture because the jailhouse lawyer who previously assisted plaintiff is no longer

Case 1:07-cv-01715-NVW Document 16 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 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

available. Id. Plaintiff also seeks a decision on appeal allowing him to proceed with this case as a

habeas corpus action, with a $5.00 filing fee. (Motion at p. 9, 10.) Plaintiff requests that "all papers on

file with this court be kept and preserved . . . until such time [as] the higher [court] does review them

and renders a decision on my appeal . . ." (Motion at p. 9.) 

Plaintiff’s appeal is premature. Plaintiff anticipates a challenge on appeal to orders by the district

court resolving matters that were still pending at the time he filed the notice of appeal on March 3, 2008.

Plaintiff’s appeal challenges decisions which the district court renders herein, in the instant order.

Should plaintiff wish to appeal the decisions rendered in the instant order, he may file a new notice of

appeal after the instant order is issued. Based on these facts, the court shall disregard plaintiff’s notice

of appeal as premature.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court shall deny plaintiff’s motion for the court to recognize

this action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus; deny plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel;

and disregard plaintiff’s notice of appeal as premature. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the court to recognize this action as a petition for writ of habeas

corpus is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED; 

3. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is DISREGARDED as premature, without prejudice; and

4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01715-NVW Document 16 Filed 04/11/08 Page 4 of 4