1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALVIN HENRY DALTON, Case No. 19-cv-03091-JST

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 KOENIG,

Respondent. 11

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, commenced this 15 action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that prison officials violated his 16 due process rights when they denied him an overnight spousal visitation. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 32–37. 17 Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Dkt. No. 6. For the reasons set forth 18 below, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action. 19 DISCUSSION 20 The Court must dismiss Petitioner’s case for lack of habeas corpus jurisdiction because his 21 claims do not affect the fact or duration of his confinement. “‘Federal law opens two main 22 avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus,

2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42

. Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to affecting its duration are the 25 province of habeas corpus . . .’” Hill v. McDonough,

, 579 (2006) (quoting 26 Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of 27 his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id. 1 prisoner’s sentence, a civil rights action under

is proper and habeas jurisdiction 2 is absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the preferred 3 practice in the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of confinement be brought in a 4 civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox,

(9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action 5 proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell,

, 891–92 6 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because challenges to terms and 7 conditions of confinement must be brought as civil rights complaint). 8 In this action, Petitioner asserts that prison officials violated his due process rights when 9 they denied him an overnight spousal visitation. The petition does not attempt to challenge either 10 the fact of his conviction or the length of his sentence. Rather, his claims relate entirely to the 11 conditions of his confinement, and success in this action would not result in his release from 12 prison nor shorten his stay in prison. 13 A district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the conditions of his 14 confinement as pleading civil rights claims under

. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404

, 251 (1971), superseded by statute on other grounds, Prison Litigation Reform Act of 16 1995,

Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., as 17 recognized in Woodford v. Ngo,

(2006). Nonetheless, the Court declines to do so 18 here for the following reasons. The difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights 19 complaint is that the two forms used by most prisoners request different information and much of 20 the information necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed 21 here. Examples of the potential problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than the 22 civil rights complaint form include the potential omission of intended defendants, potential failure 23 to link each defendant to the claims, and potential absence of an adequate prayer for relief. A 24 habeas action differs in many ways from a civil rights action: (1) a habeas petitioner has no right 25 to a jury trial on his claims; (2) the Court may be able to make credibility determinations based on 26 the written submissions of the parties in a habeas action; (3) state court (rather than administrative) 27 remedies must be exhausted for the claims in a habeas action; (4) the proper respondent in a 1 desired relief when the prisoner is complaining about a condition of confinement; and (5) damages 2 || cannot be awarded in a habeas action. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow 3 prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every case, including this 4 || one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to deal with the concerns 5 || created by the different filing fees and the absence of information pertinent to civil rights claims 6 |} onahabeas form. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s habeas action without 9 || prejudice to filing a civil rights action under

. Petitioner’s request to proceed in 10 || forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 6. 11 If Petitioner chooses to pursue a civil rights action, he must use the Court’s civil rights 12 || complaint form. If he wishes to proceed in forma pauperis rather than paying the $350.00 filing 5 13 fee, he must submit a completed in forma pauperis application, a certificate of funds, and a copy 14 || of his prisoner trust account statement. 3 15 The Clerk of the Court shall send Petitioner a blank civil rights form and the Court’s 16 || prisoner in forma pauperis application form along with his copy of this Order. 5 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 28, 2019 . .

19 JON S. TIGA 20 nited States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28