Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03091/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvin Henry Dalton
Petitioner
Koenig
Respondent

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN HENRY DALTON,

Petitioner,

v.

KOENIG,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-03091-JST 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, commenced this 

action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that prison officials violated his 

due process rights when they denied him an overnight spousal visitation. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 32–37. 

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Dkt. No. 6. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action.

DISCUSSION

The Court must dismiss Petitioner’s case for lack of habeas corpus jurisdiction because his 

claims do not affect the fact or duration of his confinement. “‘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 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.

Where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the 

Case 4:19-cv-03091-JST Document 10 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prisoner’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, Petitioner asserts that prison officials violated his due process rights when 

they denied him an overnight spousal visitation. The petition does not attempt to challenge either 

the fact of his conviction or the length of his sentence. Rather, his claims relate entirely to the 

conditions of his confinement, and success in this action would not result in his release from 

prison nor shorten his stay in prison. 

A district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner 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), superseded by statute on other grounds, Prison Litigation Reform Act of 

1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., as 

recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). Nonetheless, the Court declines to do so 

here for the following reasons. The difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights 

complaint is that the two forms used by most prisoners 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. 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 proper respondent in a 

habeas action is the warden in charge of the prison, but he or she might not be able to provide the 

Case 4:19-cv-03091-JST Document 10 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

desired relief when the prisoner is complaining about a condition of confinement; and (5) damages 

cannot be awarded in a habeas action. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow 

prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every case, including this 

one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to deal with the concerns

created by the different filing fees and the absence of information pertinent to civil rights claims 

on a habeas form.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s habeas action without 

prejudice to filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Petitioner’s request to proceed in 

forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 6.

If Petitioner chooses to pursue a civil rights action, he must use the Court’s civil rights 

complaint form. If he wishes to proceed in forma pauperis rather than paying the $350.00 filing 

fee, he must submit a completed in forma pauperis application, a certificate of funds, and a copy 

of his prisoner trust account statement.

The Clerk of the Court shall send Petitioner a blank civil rights form and the Court’s 

prisoner in forma pauperis application form along with his copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-03091-JST Document 10 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 3