Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00824/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00824-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Grounds
Respondent
Anthony R. Turner
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER, No. 2:13-cv-0824-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER 

R. Grounds,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action in propria persona. Petitioner

initiated this action by filing a Notice of Appeal on a California Judicial Council form. Attached

to that form, the order petitioner is presumably appealing, is an order from the California

Supreme Court denying petitioner’s state habeas petition. With that limited information from

petitioner, the court opened this case as a federal habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. Petitioner, however, states in his filing that he is requesting injunctive relief for retaliation,

not that he is challenging his conviction. It would appear, therefore, that his intention was to

initiate a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Before this action can proceed, either as a habeas case or a prisoner civil rights

action, petitioner’s fee status must be resolved. The court notes that petitioner has not filed an

1

Case 2:13-cv-00824-TLN-CMK Document 8 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 4
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

application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with the proper certifications. In addition, before

the court could grant such a motion, it has to be determined what type of action petitioner is

pursing so the court can determine the appropriate filing fees. 

When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of

confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is

entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973);

see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49

F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of

confinement, as opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement, and 42

U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement. 

It appears petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement, as he

is claiming that he continues suffering from retaliation. However, by filing a notice of appeal

and indicating that he is attempting to “appeal” the denial of a state habeas petition, the court

opened this action as a habeas case. To challenge the conditions of his confinement, petitioner is

attempting to proceed under the wrong process. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to 1

provide petitioner with both a new habeas petition as well as a civil rights complaint, and

petitioner will be required to choose how he wishes to proceed and file an amended pleading.

 Either way petitioner chooses to proceed, his amended petition or complaint must

be filed within the time provided in this order. Petitioner is warned that failure to file the

The court notes the possibility that plaintiff may be attempting to avoid the issue 1

of whether he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis in this action because he has filed, on three

or more prior occasions, actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To the extent this is

plaintiff’s intention, filing a habeas action to avoid dismissal is not the appropriate remedy.

2

Case 2:13-cv-00824-TLN-CMK Document 8 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 4
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

appropriate pleading within the time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this

action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Local Rule 110. 

Petitioner is also warned that if he files a complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 may, in

the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Nevijel v. North

Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel (Docs. 4, 5) and

a motion for an order to show cause (Doc. 6). In his motion for an order to show cause, he is

requesting the court allow this action to proceed and grant him in forma pauperis status. 

However, until an appropriate in forma pauperis application is filed with the court, and the court

determines the proper type of proceedings for this action, the court is unable to grant such a

request. As for the requests for appointment of counsel, again the court must determine the

proper classification for this case before such a request can be evaluated as the standards for

appointing counsel are different depending on the type of proceeding. Regardless of they type of

proceeding, however, whether counsel is appointed to assist plaintiff will only be necessary if the

action proceeds. If this case is dismissed on procedural grounds, appointment of counsel will be

unnecessary. Therefore, the motions will be denied without prejudice to renewal once petitioner

has filed the necessary amended pleadings and application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send petitioner both a blank petition for writ

of habeas corpus and a blank prisoner civil rights form complaint; 

3. Petitioner shall choose whether he will proceed in this action with a

habeas petition appropriately challenging a conviction or whether he will file a complaint to

proceed in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

4. Petitioner shall file his amended pleading within 30 days of the date of

service of this order;

3

Case 2:13-cv-00824-TLN-CMK Document 8 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 4
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

5. Petitioner shall also submit on the form provided by the Clerk of the

Court, within 30 days from the date of this order, a complete application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, with the required certifications, or the appropriate filing fee; 

6. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to send petitioner a new form

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner;

7. Petitioner’s motion for an order to show cause (Doc. 6) is denied; and

8. Petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 4, 5) are denied

without prejudice to renewal once petitioner determines how he will proceed in this action and

files the appropriate amended pleadings and in forma pauperis application.

DATED: March 6, 2014

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-00824-TLN-CMK Document 8 Filed 03/07/14 Page 4 of 4