Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01678/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01678-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Anthony Brooks
Petitioner
Savas James Loukedis
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

No. C 16-01678 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

SAVAS JAMES LOUKEDIS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 16-01678 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a

challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner’s incarceration. A review of the petition

and the amended petition, however, shows that petitioner sets forth claims for damages

against various persons on grounds that they violated his federal rights, rather than presenting

challenges to the lawfulness or duration of his confinement. Therefore, if petitioner prevails

here it will not affect the length of his incarceration. This means that his claim is not the

proper subject of a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action proper

mechanism for challenging “legality or duration” of confinement; civil rights action proper

method for challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92

Case 3:16-cv-01678-RS Document 9 Filed 06/14/16 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 1 If granted IFP status, the total fee is $350.

No. C 16-01678 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

& 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). 

In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a section 1983 complaint. 

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Although the Court may construe a

habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. Since the time when 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; for civil rights cases, however, the fee is

now $4001

 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 income to the prisoner’s

trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). A prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas

petition for which he or she would not have to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a

civil rights complaint for which the $400 fee would be deducted from income to his or her

prisoner account. Also, a civil rights complaint that is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true

for habeas cases. 

In view of these potential pitfalls for petitioner if the Court were to construe the

petition as a civil rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner

filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of the above. The Clerk shall enter

judgment in favor of respondents, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01678-RS Document 9 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 2