Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01344-1/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANA DEMETRIUS BAIRFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01344 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a Solano County Jail inmate, filed what purports to be a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition was filed in the Northern 

District of California on April 7, 2014. On May 30, 2014, the case was transferred to this district 

since the acts complained of occurred in Solano County. See ECF No. 6. In the transfer order, 

Judge Chhabria of the Northern District of California noted that while the case was initiated using 

the form for filing a habeas corpus application, petitioner was actually asserting a claim pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the mishandling of his legal mail by the Solano County Jail and 

Officer Collins. Id. Once transferred to this court, the case was opened as a habeas corpus 

petition. 

 The undersigned has reviewed the pending application for habeas corpus relief and 

determined that petitioner is not challenging his conviction or sentence. Rather, as noted by the 

Northern District of California, he is challenging the conditions of his confinement. Such a 

Case 2:14-cv-01344-JAM-AC Document 13 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

challenge is properly raised in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court has discretion to construe 

petitioner's claims as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Willwording v. Swenson, 404 

U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (district courts have discretion to construe a habeas petition attacking 

conditions of confinement as a complaint under section 1983 despite deliberate choice by 

petitioner to proceed on habeas), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). However, provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) may make it inappropriate to construe a habeas petition as a civil rights 

complaint. Due to the PLRA's filing fee requirements, 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 the 

prisoner clearly wishes to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; Bunn v. 

Conley, 309 F.3d 1002, 1007 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that courts should not recharacterize nature 

of prisoner's claim because PLRA and AEDPA created “pitfalls of different kinds for prisoners 

using the wrong vehicle”). 

Here, it is perfectly clear that petitioner’s only legal avenue for challenging the 

mishandling of his legal mail while a detainee is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, this court will redesignate the instant case as a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and will dismiss the original complaint with leave to amend on the form used 

in this district for filing a § 1983 complaint. In addition, the court will not assess the $350 filing 

fee for a civil rights action at this time, thereby allowing plaintiff to choose whether to proceed 

with this civil rights action by filing an amended complaint despite the substantial difference in 

the filing fees between a habeas corpus action ($5.00 filing fee) and a civil rights action ($350.00 

filing fee). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The Clerk of Court shall redesignate this case as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983; 

2. Petitioner’s original application filed on April 7, 2014 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with 

leave to amend; 

Case 2:14-cv-01344-JAM-AC Document 13 Filed 06/23/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

3. Petitioner may file an amended civil rights complaint on the appropriate form within 

thirty days from the date of this order; 

4. The Clerk of Court shall provide petitioner the form used in this district for filing a 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 

 5. Petitioner’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and 

motion for ADR referral (ECF No. 12) are deferred pending the filing of an amended civil rights 

complaint; and, 

 6. The failure to file an amended complaint within the time provided shall result in a 

recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: June 20, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01344-JAM-AC Document 13 Filed 06/23/14 Page 3 of 3