1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KELLY ANNE WALTERS, Case No. 21-cv-06231-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 8 ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER v. 9 TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THIS ORDER ON OR BEFORE 10 R. J. GARCIA, FEBRUARY 15, 2022 11 Respondent.

12 13 This federal action was filed by Kelly Anne Walters, a federal prisoner, as a 28

petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a challenge to the lawfulness or 15 duration of her incarceration. A review of the petition, however, shows that Walters seeks 16 reinstatement of her telephone privileges rather than release from custody. (Pet., Dkt. No. 17 1 at 6-7.) Because success on her claims will not affect the length of her incarceration, her 18 claims are not the proper subject of a habeas action. See Badea v. Cox,

, 574 19 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action proper mechanism for challenging “legality or 20 duration” of confinement). Walters may pursue her claims only through a civil rights 21 action. 22 In light of this, Walters must inform the Court by February 15, 2022 in writing 23 whether she wishes to the Court to convert this federal habeas action to a federal civil 24 rights action. Before she makes her decision, she should be aware of the following. The 25 filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars; for civil rights cases, however, the fee is now 26 $402.00 ($350.00 if pauper status is granted) and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act 27 the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of 1 ||} prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have 2 || to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the 3 || $402.00 fee would be deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil 4 || rights complaint which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim 5 || would count as a “strike” under

(g), which is not true for habeas cases. 6 If Walters chooses to pursue this suit as a civil rights action, the Court then will set 7 || a deadline for her to file a civil rights complaint and to file an application to proceed in 8 || forma pauperis (or pay the full filing fee). If Walters instead chooses to pursue this suit as 9 a habeas action, it will be dismissed for failure to state a habeas claim. She would then 10 || have to file an amended petition in which she raises challenges to her conviction and show 11 || why such a challenge should not be filed in Idaho, where she was convicted, rather than = 12 || here in the Northern District of California, where she is incarcerated.!

13 Failure to file a proper written response to this Order by February 15, 2022 will

14 || result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute, see Federal Rule of Civil © 15 || Procedure 41(b). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2022 i MQe

18 IAM H. ORRICK 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 |i This Court is likely not the proper forum in which to challenge Walters’s conviction. She 95 || was convicted in the District Court of Idaho. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) As a general rule, federal prisoners must pursue habeas relief in the district of conviction by way of a motion 26 || filed under

. Stephens v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2006). A federal prisoner may file a petition under § 2241 in the district of confinement if he or she 97 || can show that a motion under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.” Hernandez v. Campbell,

(9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth 9g || Circuit has recognized it as a very “narrow exception,” however. United States v. Pirro,

(9th Cir. 1997).