Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00160/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00160-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN N. TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v.

Warden ROBERT HOREL; et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-160 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Brian N. Taylor commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus

in which he complained about the conditions of confinement at Pelican Bay and about a state

court clerk's failure to file a civil rights complaint for him apparently concerning those

conditions. The petition does not attempt to challenge either the fact of his conviction or the

length of his sentence. 

Where, as here, success on the claims will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's

sentence, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is proper and habeas jurisdiction is

absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the preferred

practice in the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of confinement be

brought in a civil rights complaint. 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). 

Case 3:07-cv-00160-MHP Document 5 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

conditions of his confinement as pleading civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the court declines to do so here. The

difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms

used by most prisoners request different information and much of the information necessary

for a civil rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed here. Examples of the

potential problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than the civil rights

complaint form include the potential omission of intended defendants, potential failure to

link each defendant to the claims, and potential absence of an adequate prayer for relief. 

Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00 civil action

filing fee rather than the $5.00 habeas filing fee to pursue his claims. The habeas versus civil

rights distinction is not just a matter of using different pleading forms. A habeas action

differs in many ways from a civil rights action: (1) a habeas petitioner has no right to a jury

trial on his claims, (2) the court may be able to make credibility determinations based on the

written submissions of the parties in a habeas action, (3) state court (rather than

administrative) remedies must be exhausted for the claims in a habeas action, (4) the proper

respondent in a habeas action is the warden in charge of the prison, but he or she might not

be able to provide the desired relief when the prisoner is complaining about a condition of

confinement, and (5) damages cannot be awarded in a habeas action. While a prisoner may

think he has found a loophole that allows him to save $345.00 – by filing a habeas petition

with a $5.00 fee rather than the usual $350.00 fee for a civil action – the loophole proves

unhelpful because he ultimately cannot proceed in habeas and will be charged the $350.00

filing fee to challenge conditions of confinement. It is not in the interest of judicial economy

to allow prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every such

case, including this one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources

to deal with the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence of information

on the habeas form. 

Case 3:07-cv-00160-MHP Document 5 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

without prejudice to petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preferably

using the court's civil rights complaint form, after he has exhausted California's prison

administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

The in forma pauperis application is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) The clerk shall close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2007 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00160-MHP Document 5 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 3