Free Order Dismissing Case - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-02192-JF

Document 3

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TODD D. PICKENS, Petitioner, v. BEN CURRY, Warden, Respondent. / No. C 08-2192 JF (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, Petitioner challenges his medical care and treatment at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. 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, 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) (implying that claim, which if successful would "necessarily" or "likely" accelerate the
Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.08\Pickens192disrem.wpd

Case 5:08-cv-02192-JF

Document 3

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

prisoner's release on parole, must be brought in a habeas petition). The preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of confinement should be brought in a civil rights complaint. See 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). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this habeas action because Petitioner's claims do not challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner's claims concern his medical care and treatment at the Correctional Training Facility. Petitioner's claims are more appropriately addressed in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Petitioner may choose to file a civil rights complaint in a new case on the enclosed civil rights complaint form. CONCLUSION The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.
5/8/08 DATED: _______________

___________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.08\Pickens192disrem.wpd

2