Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03970/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03970-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Hayden
Petitioner
John Marshall
Respondent

Document Text:

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

CALVIN HAYDEN,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN MARSHALL (warden),

Respondent. /

No. C 06-3970 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Calvin Hayden, an inmate at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo,

commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he complained that

his rights were violated during an incident that occurred at the California Men's Colony. The

petition does not attempt to challenge either the fact of his conviction or the length of his

sentence. Rather, it goes entirely to the conditions of his confinement, and success in this action

would not result in his release from prison nor shorten his stay in prison. 

Where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition 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
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

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

Hayden's use of a habeas petition to challenge conditions of confinement was improper. 

In addition to being on the wrong form, the action has been filed in the wrong place. The

California Men's Colony is in San Luis Obispo County, which is within the venue of the Central

District of California and not within the venue of the Northern District. Therefore, a challenge

to a condition of confinement at the California Men's Colony should be filed in the Central

District of California. Venue therefore properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b). An action filed in the wrong venue may be dismissed or transferred to the

proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Dismissal is the better choice here because Hayden's

action is not even on the right form.

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) this action is DISMISSED. This dismissal

is without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new action in the proper venue. If Hayden wants to

complain in federal court about the conditions of confinement at the California Men's Colony,

he needs to file in the Central District of California in Los Angeles, and should file a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In light of the dismissal of this action, the in forma pauperis

application is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2006 _______________________ 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge