Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01300/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01300-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Baughman
Respondent
Anthony E. Mack
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY E. MACK,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BAUGHMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1300 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

By an order filed June 21, 2016, petitioner was ordered to file an in forma pauperis 

affidavit or to pay the appropriate filing fee, within thirty days, or his application would be 

dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed an in forma 

pauperis affidavit, and has not paid the appropriate filing fee. However, on July 7, 2016, 

petitioner filed a motion for change of venue. (ECF No. 4.) In his motion, petitioner asks the 

court to transfer this action to the Central District of California because the allegedly 

unconstitutional actions took place at Lancaster State Prison in Los Angeles County.

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).

Case 2:16-cv-01300-MCE-KJN Document 6 Filed 08/16/16 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

Here, the instant petition does not challenge the fact or duration of petitioner’s 

confinement in state prison. Rather, petitioner challenges a policy he contends is 

unconstitutional, or has been applied in a discriminatory fashion. (ECF No. 1.) Thus, petitioner’s 

claims are more appropriately brought in a civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

The court has discretion to construe petitioner’s claims as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. See Willwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (district courts have discretion to 

construe a habeas petition attacking conditions of confinement as a complaint under section 1983 

despite deliberate choice by petitioner to proceed on habeas), superseded by statute on other 

grounds as recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). However, provisions of the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) may make it inappropriate to construe a habeas 

petition as a civil rights complaint. Due to the PLRA’s filing fee requirements, its provisions 

requiring sua sponte review of complaints, and its limits on the number of actions a prisoner may 

be permitted to file in forma pauperis,1a prisoner should not be obligated to proceed with a civil 

rights action unless the prisoner clearly wishes to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A; 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e; Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002, 1007 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that courts should 

not recharacterize nature of prisoner’s claim because PLRA and AEDPA created “pitfalls of 

different kinds for prisoners using the wrong vehicle”). 

Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice instead of 

converting the case into a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, or allowing petitioner to file a civil rights 

complaint in this action. 

////

 

1

Petitioner has filed the following civil rights action in the Eastern District of California: 

Mack v. Harrison, 2:90-cv-0497 EDP JFM

Mack v. Kaufman, 2:90-cv-0728 REC GGH

Mack v. Braumbaugh, 2:91-cv-0083 REC JFM

Mack v. Witcher, 2:04-cv-5787 REC WMW

Mack v. Ono, 2:05-cv-2134 MCE CMK

Mack v. Unknown, 2:08-cv-3161 EFB

Mack v. Hubbard, 1:09-cv-2078 AWI GSA

Mack v. Frazier, 1:10-cv-0052 LJO MJS

Mack v. Hubbard, 1:11-cv-0606 SAB

Case 2:16-cv-01300-MCE-KJN Document 6 Filed 08/16/16 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

2. Petitioner’s request for a change of venue (ECF No. 4) is denied; 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 16, 2016

/mack1300.fpf.hab

Case 2:16-cv-01300-MCE-KJN Document 6 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 3