Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02192/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02192-0/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

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.08\Pickens192disrem.wpd

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD D. PICKENS,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-2192 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, Petitioner challenges his medical care and treatment at the

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. 

The Supreme Court has declined to address whether a challenge to a condition of

confinement may be brought under habeas. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6

(1979); Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S.

918 (1996). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “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.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)

(implying that claim, which if successful would “necessarily” or “likely” accelerate the

Case 5:08-cv-02192-JF Document 3 Filed 05/13/08 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

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.08\Pickens192disrem.wpd 2

prisoner’s release on parole, must be brought in a habeas petition). The preferred practice in

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

a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights

action is 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 on basis that

challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint).

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this habeas action because Petitioner’s claims do

not challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner’s claims concern

his medical care and treatment at the Correctional Training Facility. Petitioner’s claims are

more appropriately addressed in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

Petitioner may choose to file a civil rights complaint in a new case on the enclosed civil

rights complaint form. 

 CONCLUSION

The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. The

Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ ___________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

5/8/08

Case 5:08-cv-02192-JF Document 3 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 2