Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05516/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05516-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Fitzwater
Petitioner
Marin County Jail
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 1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

15-cv-5516 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

MICHAEL FITZWATER, 

Petitioner,

v.

MARIN CA JAIL/SHERIFF DEPT., 

Respondents.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-5516 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 4]

Michael Fitzwater, an inmate at the Marin County Jail, commenced this action by filing a

petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he complains about the medical and mental health

services at the jail. He has consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 4 at 6.)1 His

petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

"'Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition

for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat.

§ 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to

particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.'" Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S.

574, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). "An inmate's challenge

to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983." Id.

Case 3:15-cv-05516-LB Document 5 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 3
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

15-cv-5516 LB

ORDER 2

Where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the inmate'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 challenges to terms and conditions of

confinement must be brought as civil rights complaint). 

In this action, Mr. Fitzwater challenges jail conditions. The petition does not attempt to

challenge either the fact of his confinement 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 jail

nor shorten his stay in jail. Mr. Fitzwater’s claims must be pursued in a civil rights action if they are

to be pursued in federal court.

Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by an inmate attacking the conditions of

his confinement as pleading civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Wilwording v. Swenson, 404

U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the court declines to do so here. The difficulty with construing a habeas

petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms used by most inmates request different

information and much of the information necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included in the

habeas petition filed here. Examples of the potential problems created by using the habeas petition

form rather than the civil rights complaint form include the potential omission of intended

defendants, potential failure to link each defendant to the claims, and potential absence of an

adequate prayer for relief. Additionally, there is doubt whether the inmate is willing to pay the civil

action filing fee of $ 350.00 (plus a $50.00 administrative fee) rather than the $5.00 habeas filing fee

to pursue his claims. The habeas versus civil rights distinction is not just a matter of using different

pleading forms. A habeas action differs in many ways from a civil rights action: (1) a habeas

petitioner has no right to a jury trial on his claims, (2) the court may be able to make credibility

determinations based on the written submissions of the parties in a habeas action, (3) state court

(rather than administrative) remedies must be exhausted for the claims in a habeas action, (4) the

Case 3:15-cv-05516-LB Document 5 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 3
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

15-cv-5516 LB

ORDER 3

proper respondent in a habeas action is the warden in charge of the prison (or sheriff in charge of the

jail), but he or she might not be able to provide the desired relief when the inmate is complaining

about a condition of confinement, and (5) damages cannot be awarded in a habeas action. While an

inmate may think he has found a loophole that allows him to save hundreds of dollars – by filing a

habeas petition with a $5.00 fee rather than the usual $350.00 fee (plus $50.00 administrative fee)

for a civil action – the loophole proves unhelpful because he ultimately cannot proceed in habeas

and will be charged the regular civil action filing fee to challenge conditions of confinement. It is

not in the interest of judicial economy to allow inmates to file civil rights actions on habeas forms

because virtually every such case, including this one, will be defective at the outset and require

additional court resources to deal with the problems created by the different filing fees and the

absence of information on the habeas form. 

For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without

prejudice to Mr. Fitzwater filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preferably using the

court's civil rights complaint form. 

Mr. Fitzwater’s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 4.)

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2016 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05516-LB Document 5 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 3