Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04054/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04054-1/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)

---

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

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Alford054disrem 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE 

PRISON, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4054 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant habeas action was transferred to this Court

from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 16,

2007, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed

the instant petition with leave to amend because Petitioner’s claims were not cognizable

under § 2254. Petitioner failed to allege any violation of federal law, treaty, or the 

constitution in his petition. 

On April 27, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended petition. The amended petition

raises claims concerning Petitioner’s conditions of confinement at Salinas Valley State

Prison, rather than challenging the legality or duration of Petitioner’s conviction or

**E-filed 5/31/07**

Case 5:06-cv-04054-JF Document 10 Filed 05/31/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Alford054disrem 2

sentence. 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 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 the instant habeas action without prejudice

because Petitioner’s claims do not challenge the duration or legality of his confinement or

sentence under § 2254. Instead, Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement at

Salinas Valley State Prison. Petitioner’s claims should be raised in a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

 CONCLUSION

The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner may re-file his

claims in a new action under a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on the

enclosed form. Petitioner shall include any supporting documentation of his prison

appeal with his new complaint as the instant case will be closed. The Clerk shall

terminate any pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

5/31/07

Case 5:06-cv-04054-JF Document 10 Filed 05/31/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Alford054disrem 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Rickey Louis Alford

J-39242

CSP - Salinas Valley IV

P.O. Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960

Case 5:06-cv-04054-JF Document 10 Filed 05/31/07 Page 3 of 3