1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERT A. TORRES, Case No.: 20-CV-0724 JLS (BLM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. 14 C/O LARIOS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Gilbert Anthony Torres, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. 19 FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 20 Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in 21 forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 22 fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 23 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS 24 In addition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought 25 pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. In the 26 Petition, Petitioner claims that correctional officers used excessive force on him while he 27 was in prison. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas because 28 they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 1 || § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973); Heck v. Humphrey,

||477, 480-85 (1994); Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016). 3 When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 4 |/imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 5 ||release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 6 || habeas corpus pursuant to

. Preiser,

; Nettles,

On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is 8 ||making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life or constitutional 9 challenges to his arrest, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Preiser,

|| 500; Nettles,

. It appears that Petitioner does not seek to challenge the fact 11 || or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant 12 § 2254. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Because it appears that Petitioner does not seek to challenge the validity of his state 15 || court conviction, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to 16 ||amend. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of his prison life, he must file a 17 complaint pursuant to

which will be given a separate case number. 18 || The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank motion to proceed in forma 19 || pauperis form and a blank civil complaint form pursuant to

together 20 || with a copy of this Order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: May 4, 2020 tt f te 23 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28