1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ORREN DAWES, Case No.: 19cv1921-CAB-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 THE PEOPLE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 2, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner did not pay the filing fee and did not file a 19 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 21 Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in forma 22 pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee 23 or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 24 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS 25 Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of 26 Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims 27 Petitioner presents. Petitioner claims he is a pretrial detainee in the San Diego County 28 Jail, but he also appears to be challenging an administrative decision rendered at a county 1 jail facility having to do with Petitioner being involuntarily medicated for the last two 2 years. [Doc. No. 1 at 2.] The allegations in this Petition appear to relate to conditions of 3 confinement rather than any constitutional claims that may affect the duration of his 4 confinement.1 5 Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas review. Challenges to the fact or 6 duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 7

or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought 8 pursuant to the Civil Rights Act,

, see Preiser v. Rodriguez,

475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal 10 Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971), the “federal analogue” to § 1983. Hartman v. 11 Moore,

, 255 n.2 (2006). Although the Ninth Circuit has stated that 12 “petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution 13 must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court,” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204

(9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (emphasis added), general conditions of 15 confinement claims are not cognizable under § 2241. See Wright v. Shartle, 699

(9th Cir. 2017) (finding claims that BOP officials unconstitutionally 17 seized mail and imposed sanctions of loss of phone, visitation, and email correspondence 18 privileges are not cognizable under § 2241 and should instead be brought in a civil rights 19 action). Here, it appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but 20 not the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas 21 claim pursuant to § 2241. 22 / / / / / 23 / / / / / 24 25 26 1 The Court notes that Petitioner has two other habeas cases pending in this Court: (1) 27 Case No. 19cv1920-LAB-AGS (

) and (2) Case No. 19cv1524-AJB-NLS (

). 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice 3 || to being refiled with a new case number pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $1983. The Clerk of 4 Court shall provide Petitioner with a blank copy of the Court’s form “Complaint under 5 || the Civil Rights Act,

.” The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: October 4, 2019 € ZL 8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ? United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28