Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05457/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Dale Barger
Petitioner
Rackley
Respondent

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GARY DALE BARGER,

Petitioner,

v.

RACKLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-05457-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, that is, as a challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner Gary Barger’s 

incarceration. A review of the petition, however, shows that Barger sets forth claims 

regarding the conditions of his confinement, specifically the failure of his jailors at the 

California Health Care Facility to process his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) applications. 

Therefore, if he prevails here it will not affect necessarily the length of his incarceration. 

This means that his claim is not the proper subject of a habeas action, but must be brought 

as a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th 

Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action proper mechanism for challenging “legality or duration” 

of confinement; civil rights action proper method for 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 

Case 3:14-cv-05457-WHO Document 7 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint). 

In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a section 1983 

complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Although the Court may 

construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. Since the time 

when the Wilwording case was decided there have been significant changes in the law. For 

instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars; for civil rights cases, however, 

the fee is now $400 ($350 if IFP status is granted) and under the Prisoner Litigation 

Reform Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted IFP status, by way of 

deductions from income to the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). A 

prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have 

to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $400 

fee would be deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil rights 

complaint which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would 

count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases. 

In view of these potential pitfalls for Barger if the Court were to construe the 

petition as a civil rights complaint, this federal action is DISMISSED without prejudice to 

his filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of the above. Because he 

challenges the conditions of confinement at the California Health Care Facility in 

Stockton, California, he must file such civil rights action in the Eastern District of 

California. 

Barger’s motion to proceed IFP (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED. His motion for a 

preliminary injunction (Docket No. 4) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall terminate 

Docket Nos. 2 and 4, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05457-WHO Document 7 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 2