Opinion
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES F. EICK, Magistrate Judge.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Virginia A. Phillips, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody" on December 10, 2014. It plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. Therefore, the Court should deny and dismiss the Petition without prejudice. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner, a state prisoner currently serving his sentence in the Los Angeles County Jail, seeks to challenge certain conditions of his confinement, including alleged restrictions on his religious practices and alleged restrictions on his access to legal materials. The Petition does not challenge the legality of Petitioner's conviction or the length of Petitioner's sentence.
A civil rights complaint, not a habeas corpus petition, is the proper method of challenging the conditions of confinement. See Badea v. Cox , 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell , 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979). "[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent and a [civil rights] 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), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1063 (2004); accord Badea v. Cox , 931 F.2d at 574. Because the present Petition does not challenge the legality of Petitioner's conviction or the length of Petitioner's sentence, habeas jurisdiction is absent. See id.
This Court should not exercise its discretion to convert the present Petition into a civil rights complaint. There exist profound procedural and substantive differences between habeas corpus actions and civil rights actions pertinent to the circumstances herein. For example, Sheriff McDonald, as Petitioner's custodian, would be an appropriate respondent in a habeas corpus action. See Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Sheriff McDonald would not necessarily be an appropriate defendant in a civil rights action, however. A defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim absent the defendant's "personal involvement" in the alleged constitutional deprivation or a "causal connection" between the defendant's conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. Hansen v. Black , 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy , 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978); see Palmer v. Sanderson , 9 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir. 1993) (a supervisory official may not be held liable in a civil rights action under the doctrines of vicarious liability or respondeat superior). Additionally, prisoners filing civil rights actions, unlike prisoners filing habeas petitions, are liable for the full amount of the $400.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); see Naddi v. Hill , 106 F.3d 275 (9th Cir. 1997) (in forma pauperis provisions of section 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, do not apply to habeas actions). Thus, conversion of the present Petition into a civil rights complaint would be inappropriate. See Glaus v. Anderson , 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005) (court relied on myriad differences between habeas actions and civil rights actions in affirming district court's refusal to recharacterize a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint); Alford v. Doe, 2009 WL 3712823, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2009) (declining to convert mislabeled habeas petition into civil rights action).
The Court also observes that Petitioner already has pending in this Court a civil rights action in which he appears to challenge some of the same alleged conditions of confinement Petitioner seeks to challenge herein. See Bird v. (1) Sheriff Jim McDonald, et al., No. CV 14-7205-VAP(E).
RECOMMENDATION
For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice.