Opinion
Jean Crump, Petitioner, Pro se, Los Angeles, CA.
For Bureau of Prison, Warden Johnson, Respondents: Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA; Diana L Pauli, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA.
PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. VICTOR B. KENTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jean Crump (hereinafter referred to as " Petitioner") filed a " Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 18, 2014. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Marvin Gardens Halfway House at Los Angeles, California. Petitioner seeks judicial intervention as there are not enough bathrooms for the number of drug addicts residing at Marvin Gardens, there is a lack of proper food for Petitioner as she is an insulin dependent diabetic, and there is staff harassment. (See Petition at 3-4, attached page.)
According to traditional interpretation the writ of habeas corpus is limited to the legality or duration of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979). The appropriate remedy for causes of action arising out of conditions of confinement as outlined in the Petition would be a judicially mandated change in conditions and/or an award of damages, but not release from confinement.
Petitioner's claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Section 2241 of Title 28 provides that a writ of habeas corpus can only be issued if Petitioner is in custody for a violation of a statute or order, and that such custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
Petitioner does not seek release from confinement nor does she argue that her current incarceration is unconstitutional. Rather, Petitioner seeks additional bathrooms, proper food for diabetics and an end to staff harassment. These allegations do not go to the fact or duration of Petitioner's confinement. It appears that Petitioner is actually claiming a violation of her civil rights. If so, Petitioner should file the appropriate action.
Since the passage of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA") in 1995, prisoners are now subject to various constraints in filing civil rights actions, including filing fees requirements, limits on the number of actions that may be filed in forma pauperis and, most pertinent here, strict exhaustion requirements. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84-85, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required for all prisoner suits seeking redress for prison occurrences, regardless of whether they involve general circumstances of incarceration or particular episodes); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that PLRA requires district courts to dismiss actions without prejudice where the prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit). Because of these different requirements, this Court concludes it would be inappropriate to construe the Petition as a civil rights complaint. See also Serrato v. Baca, 2009 WL 2781310, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2009) (noting that " provisions of the [PLRA] may make it inappropriate to construe a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint").
Since Petitioner does not state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismissal of the Petition is warranted.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Petition is dismissed;
2. The Clerk shall mail Petitioner the proper form on which to file a civil rights action; and
3. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner and Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Memorandum and Order Dismissing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.