Bryant v. Kibler

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Bryant v. Kibler

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT, D56620, Case No. 20-cv-08986-CRB (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE

10 BRIAN KIBLER, Warden, (ECF Nos. 2 & 3) 11 Respondent.

12 Petitioner, a state prisoner at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) in Susanville, California 13 and frequent litigant, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

14 challenging the conditions of his confinement at HDSP during the current pandemic. 15 Based on petitioner’s prior affidavits of poverty, leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. But 16 the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a civil rights 17 complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 18 California. 19 It is well established in the Ninth Circuit that habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 20 action proper, where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition or event will not 21 necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence. See Ramirez v. Galaza,

334 F.3d 850, 859

(9th Cir. 22 2003); see also Badea v. Cox,

931 F.2d 573, 574

(9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is proper 23 method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell,

599 F.2d 890

, 891-92 & n.1 24 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to terms and 25 conditions of confinement should be brought in civil rights complaint). Petitioner’s challenge to 26 the conditions of his confinement at HDSP during the current pandemic accordingly should be 27 brought in a civil rights complaint under § 1983. And because the acts or omissions of which 1 California, a civil rights complaint under § 1983 should be brought in the United States District 2 || Court for the Eastern District of California. 3 The clerk is instructed to close this case and terminate all pending motions (see ECF Nos. 4 2 & 3) as moot. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: December 17, 2020 7 = K — CHARLES R. BREYER 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 g 12

13

© 15 16 & 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown