1 2 3 4 JS-6 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDY FORTNER, et al., Case No. 2:25-CV-00784-MEMF-AJR 12 Petitioners, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 14 LAKE COUNTY JAIL, et al., ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

15 Respondents. 16 17 On January 27, 2025, Andy Fortner and Erin Charles Costigan, pro se 18 prisoners in the custody of the Lake County Sherriff’s Department at the Lake 19 County Jail, filed a state-court form Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the 20 “Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) Section 2254 empowers the court to “entertain an application 21 for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 22 judgment of a State court . . . on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 23 laws of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

2254(a). 25 26 The Court need neither grant the writ nor order a return if “it appears from 27 the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 28

; see also Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 2 United States District Courts. It is evident from the face of the Petition that the 3 Petition does not intend to challenge the legality of a conviction or otherwise set out 4 a claim of being held in custody in violation of the laws of the Constitution or laws 5 or treaties of the United States. (See Dkt. 1). Instead, the Petition appears to seek 6 damages for emotional distress based on alleged violations of the Americans with 7 Disabilities Act. (Id. at 2-3.) Accordingly, this Court concludes that the 8 jurisdictional requisite for a Section 2254 habeas petition has not been met. 9 10 “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its 11 duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on 12 circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action.” 13 Muhammad v. Close,

(2004) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see 14 Wilkinson v. Dotson,

(2005) (habeas is the proper vehicle where 15 the prisoner “seeks either immediate release from prison, or the shortening of his 16 term of confinement” (citation omitted)). However, claims that “would not 17 necessarily lead to [a prisoner’s] immediate or earlier release from confinement” do 18 not fall within “the core of habeas corpus” and must be brought under § 1983. 19 Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citation omitted). 20 The Petition challenges conditions of confinement, not the fact or duration of that 21 confinement. (See Dkt. 1 at 3-7.) The Petition makes claims related to emotional 22 distress due to the denial of exercise privileges. (Id.) As “grounds” for federal 23 habeas relief, the Petition cites to “federal law under the [Americans with 24 Disabilities Act.]” (Id. at 3.) Such claims do not fall within the “core of habeas 25 corpus.” 26 27 The Court considered whether to ignore the erroneous labeling of the Petition 28 and construe this pleading as a civil rights complaint. “[A] district court may 1 || construe a petition for habeas corpus to plead a cause of action under § 1983 after 2 || notifying and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner.” Nettles,

|| 936; see also

(“If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning 4 || that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may 5 || recharacterize the petition so long as it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences 6 || of the conversion and provides an opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend 7 || his or her complaint.” (citation omitted)). 8 9 However, in this instance, any such conversion would result in a duplicative 10 || complaint. On the exact same date the Petition was filed, a Civil Rights Complaint 11 || pursuant

based on the same incidents at issue in the instant 12 || Petition, and raising substantially the same claims, was filed. (See 2:25-cv-00757- 13 | MEMF-AJR, Dkt. 1.) Accordingly, the Court declines to convert the current 14 || Petition into a Section 1983 action, as a substantially similar Section 1983 15 || complaint is already pending based on the same allegations. 16 17 Consistent with the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered 18 || dismissing this action without prejudice. 19 20 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 21 22 || DATED: February 25, 2025 23 ~

24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT IUDGE 26 27 28