1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No.: 19cv1920-LAB (AGS)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 THE PEOPLE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

, but has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor 19 submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 21 Because this Court cannot proceed unless Petitioner either pays the filing fee or 22 submits a motion to proceed in forma paupers, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 23 BASIS FOR THE PETITION 24 In addition, Petitioner filed this action pursuant to

. However, he 25 is a pretrial detainee who indicates he is not challenging a state court conviction in this 26 action. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) Rather, he is challenging the conditions of his confinement, 27 specifically, medical decisions regarding mental health treatment made during his current 28 pre-trial custody. (See

.) 1 Petitioner’s claims challenging the conditions of confinement are not cognizable on 2 || federal habeas corpus because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration 3 ||of his confinement. In Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973), the Court held that 4 habeas is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his 5 ||confinement and where the relief he seeks is a determination he is entitled to release from 6 ||that confinement.

. Challenges to conditions of confinement are brought 7 || pursuant to the Civil Rights Act,

.

; see also Mayle v. Felix, 545 8 ||U.S. 644, 671 n.4 (2005) (“the single, defining feature setting habeas cases apart from other 9 || tort claims against the State is that they ‘necessarily demonstrate[e] the invalidity of the 10 ||conviction.’”), quoting Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994) (holding that 11 claims which “do not call into question the lawfulness of the conviction or confinement,” 12 || or challenge the fact or duration of custody, or “seek immediate or speedier release” from 13 || custody, are not cognizable under

.) Neither are his claims cognizable 14 || under

. See Wright v. Shartle,

, 733 (9th Cir. 2017) 15 || (holding that claims which “do not concern the manner, location, or conditions of [a] 16 || sentence’s execution” are not cognizable under

). 17 Petitioner is advised that if he wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement 18 must file a civil rights complaint pursuant to

, which will be filed as a 19 || separate civil action and given a separate civil case number. 20 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 The Petition is DISMISSED because Petitioner has not satisfied the filing fee 22 |/requirement and has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim. The dismissal is without 23 || leave to amend in this case, but without prejudice to Petitioner to challenge the conditions 24 || of his confinement in a separate civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: October 11, 2019 lau 4A Ay 17 Chief Judge Larry A. Burns United States District Court 28