Opinion
Case No.: 19cv1921-CAB-BGS
10-04-2019
WILLIAM ORREN DAWES, Plaintiff, v. THE PEOPLE, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On October 2, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner did not pay the filing fee and did not file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS
Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. Petitioner claims he is a pretrial detainee in the San Diego County Jail, but he also appears to be challenging an administrative decision rendered at a county jail facility having to do with Petitioner being involuntarily medicated for the last two years. [Doc. No. 1 at 2.] The allegations in this Petition appear to relate to conditions of confinement rather than any constitutional claims that may affect the duration of his confinement.
The Court notes that Petitioner has two other habeas cases pending in this Court: (1) Case No. 19cv1920-LAB-AGS (28 U.S.C. §2254) and (2) Case No. 19cv1524-AJB-NLS (28 U.S.C. §2241).
Petitioner's claims are not cognizable on habeas review. Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the "federal analogue" to § 1983. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, 255 n.2 (2006). Although the Ninth Circuit has stated that "petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court," Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (emphasis added), general conditions of confinement claims are not cognizable under § 2241. See Wright v. Shartle, 699 Fed.Appx. 733 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding claims that BOP officials unconstitutionally seized mail and imposed sanctions of loss of phone, visitation, and email correspondence privileges are not cognizable under § 2241 and should instead be brought in a civil rights action). Here, it appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2241. / / / / / / / / / /
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice to being refiled with a new case number pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Clerk of Court shall provide Petitioner with a blank copy of the Court's form "Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983." The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 4, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
United States District Judge