Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Barba
Petitioner
Fresno County Corizon Medical
Respondent
Fresno County Jail
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner proceeds in pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docs. 1, 3, 4. Petitioner was formerly incarcerated at Fresno 

County Jail. He has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Doc. 5. Petitioner challenges the 

conditions of his confinement, and not the fact or duration of his confinement; hence, his petition 

does not state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief and should be dismissed without 

prejudice to filing a civil rights action. 

I. SCREENING STANDARD 

Under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), the Court must screen all complaints brought in forma 

pauperis or by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly 

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 

district court.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

II. HABEAS CORPUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS 

Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement. Challenges to the conditions of 

SERGIO BARBA,

Petitioner,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL; FRESNO 

COUNTY CORIZON MEDICAL,

Respondents.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1762-SMS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Doc. 4. 

Case 1:15-cv-01762-SMS Document 7 Filed 03/03/16 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

prison life are properly brought in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McCarthy v. 

Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). 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). A plaintiff may not seek 

both types of relief in a single action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994); 

Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99 n. 15; Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub 

nom Bressman v. Farrier, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. A federal court has discretion to construe a mislabeled habeas 

corpus petition as a civil rights action and permit the action to proceed as such. See Wilwording v. 

Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam) (state prisoners’ habeas petitions, which 

challenged their living conditions and disciplinary measures and did not seek release, could be 

read to plead § 1983 claims).

Here, the petition is drafted on a form habeas petition, but it exclusively concerns 

conditions of confinement. Petitioner specifies that he was admitted to Fresno County Jail in 

August 2015 and had advised the medical screening personnel that he had injuries to his shoulder, 

back, and spine. Doc. 4. Fifty-one days passed before he was seen by a physician and receive 

medication to address the pain. Petitioner alleges that he was to be released on February 15, 2016. 

Doc. 6. Challenges to prison conditions are properly brought in a civil rights complaint under § 

1983 and not a habeas petition under § 2254. The Court has discretion to construe the petition as a 

civil rights action; however, Petitioner is no longer in custody and it is not clear whether he 

complied with all procedural requirements prior to bringing this action. Hence, the Court will not 

convert the habeas petition into a civil rights complaint, but will dismiss the petition without 

prejudice to filing a civil rights action. 

III. APPEALABILITY

For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find 

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] that 

Case 1:15-cv-01762-SMS Document 7 Filed 03/03/16 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

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Hence, the Court will decline to issue a 

certificate of appealability. 

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition be DISMISSED

without prejudice. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

The Clerk is directed to provide Petitioner with a civil rights complaint form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01762-SMS Document 7 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 3