Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01471/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01471-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Matthew Joseph Sund
Petitioner

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is proceeding in pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. The petition will be 

dismissed without prejudice because Petitioner is not presently in custody. 

I. SCREENING STANDARD 

The Court is required to screen pleadings filed by prisoners, and to dismiss them to the 

extent they fail to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and 

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

II. THE CUSTODY REQUIREMENT

The Court cannot reach the merits of a habeas corpus claim unless it concludes that it has 

jurisdiction. By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 

[o]n behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground 

that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 

MATTHEW JOSEPH SUND,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1471-SMS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Case 1:15-cv-01471-SMS Document 5 Filed 03/02/16 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

U.S.C. § 2254(a). Section 2254(a)’s “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional; thus, “it is the first 

question [the Court] must consider.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Plaintiff was formerly confined in Fresno County Jail and later in Atascadero State 

Hospital. According to his address of record, he is not currently incarcerated and currently resides 

in Salt Lake City, Utah. Hence, Petitioner does not satisfy the statutory in-custody requirement. 

Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition and will be dismissed. 

III. HABEAS CORPUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS 

In addition, because Petitioner challenges both the duration and the conditions of his 

confinement, the Court is uncertain of the exact nature of Petitioner’s claim. Challenges to the 

conditions of prison life are properly brought in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 

concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

“Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of 

his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come 

within the literal terms of § 1983.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89 (1973). A plaintiff 

may not seek both types of relief in a single action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 

(1994); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99 n. 15; Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. 

denied sub nom Bressman v. Farrier, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A federal court has discretion to construe a 

mislabeled habeas corpus petition as a civil rights action and permit the action to proceed as such. 

See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam) (state prisoners’ habeas 

petitions, which challenged their living conditions and disciplinary measures and did not seek 

release, could be read to plead § 1983 claims).

Here, the petition is drafted on a form habeas petition, but it primarily concerns conditions

of confinement. Petitioner specifies that he appealed his conviction based on prison conditions and 

failure to provide medical care. Petitioner alleges that he was not provided necessary medication. 

Challenges to prison conditions are properly brought in a civil rights complaint under § 1983 and 

Case 1:15-cv-01471-SMS Document 5 Filed 03/02/16 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

not a habeas petition under § 2254. The Court has discretion to construe the petition as a civil 

rights action; however, Petitioner also argues that his counsel was incompetent and did not 

respond to Petitioner’s mail or otherwise contact him when requested. Petitioner may not proceed 

with both of his claims in a single action, and it is unclear to the Court which claim he intends to 

bring in the instant petition. Hence, the Court will not convert the habeas petition into a civil rights 

complaint. 

IV. APPEALABILITY

For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find 

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Hence, the Court will decline to issue a 

certificate of appealability. 

V. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition be DISMISSED

without prejudice. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01471-SMS Document 5 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3