Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07379/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07379-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bob Horel
Respondent
Danny Troxell
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY TROXELL, 

Petitioner,

 v.

BOB HOREL, Warden, 

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7379 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Pelican

Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is directed to the actions of jail officials in

seizing some of Petitioner’s artwork which was identified as gang-related and for which

Petitioner received a “Custodial Counseling Chrono” as a result of a rule violation charge.

Petitioner’s claims do not involve the fact or duration of his confinement, hence

they are not the proper subject of a habeas action. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647,

650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights

action is 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 on basis

that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights

complaint). 

The Supreme Court has declined to address whether a challenge to a condition of

confinement may be brought under habeas. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6

(1979); Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 519

U.S. 918 (1996). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent,

Case 3:06-cv-07379-TEH Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 2
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

and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not

necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th

Cir. 2003).

A district court may construe a habeas petition attacking conditions of confinement

as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S.

249, 251 (1971). However, although the court may construe a habeas petition as a civil

rights action, it is not required to do so. Since 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, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. 

For civil rights cases, however, the fee is $350 and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform

Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of

deductions from his or her prisoner account. In view of this, this case will be dismissed

without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of

the above. As such, the Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 12/19/06 _________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07379-TEH Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2