Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-0900 GEB AC P
10-07-2015
WALTER CURRIE, Petitioner, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON WARDEN, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. In his petition, petitioner alleges that as a mentally ill and openly gay inmate, he is wrongfully being denied single cell housing status in violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 5. Petitioner seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 15, 19.
Petitioner's request for injunctive relief regarding his cell status presents a challenge to the conditions of petitioner's confinement, which may not be addressed in this habeas action. Habeas jurisdiction exists only for petitioners challenging the legality or duration of their incarceration, not the conditions of confinement. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner is advised that the proper mechanism for raising a federal challenge to conditions of confinement is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, petitioner specifically states that "[his] petition does not concern [his] sentence or conviction;" rather, it concerns only "prison conditions" and his need for "single cell status." See ECF No. 1 at 1. Accordingly, it is recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner's right to file a § 1983 civil rights complaint.
WARNING: Petitioner is informed that upon filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint, he will be charged a $350 filing fee. Petitioner is cautioned that this court has made no determination as to the merits of his potential § 1983 claims and has made no findings as to whether his claims would survive past the screening stage, should he elect to pursue a civil rights action.
Petitioner is further advised that prior to filing a § 1983 civil rights action, he must first file an administrative grievance with the prison and complete the prison grievance process in order to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (the PLRA requires that administrative remedies be exhausted prior to filing suit). See also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion requires that the prisoner complete the administrative review process in accordance with all applicable procedural rules). Petitioner may then seek relief in federal court by filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice to refilling it as a § 1983 civil rights action; and
2. The clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 civil rights complaint form and the accompanying directions.
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 twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff 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: October 7, 2015
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE