1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL GARDEA, JR., Case No.: 25-cv-2315-CAB-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 14 FIDENCIO GUZMAN, Warden, PREJUDICE 15 Respondent. [Doc. No. 3] 16

17 18 On August 11, 2025, Raul Gardea Jr. (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro 19 se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

in the Central 20 District of California, challenging a prison disciplinary ruling incurred during his 21 incarceration at Centinela State Prison. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner also filed a motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 3.] The case was transferred to this district. [Doc. 23 Nos. 5–6.] Upon review, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the 24 motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 25 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 26 Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, [see Doc. No. 3], together 27 with a trust account statement which reflects a $163.49 balance in his prison trust account 28 at the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. [Id. at 2–3, 5.] 1 The filing fee associated with this type of action is $5.00. See

(a). 2 Because it appears Petitioner can pay the $5.00 filing fee, Petitioner’s motion to proceed 3 in forma pauperis is DENIED. 4 This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or has 5 qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See R. 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 6 (2019). The instant case is therefore subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to 7 satisfy the filing fee requirement. 8 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS 9 The Petition is also subject to dismissal because a petition for writ of habeas corpus 10 brought pursuant to

is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner 11 presents. Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a 12 writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to

; challenges to conditions of 13 confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act,

. See Preiser 14 v. Rodriguez,

, 488–500 (1973). “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the 15 very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination 16 that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his 17 sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”

. On the other hand, “a § 1983 18 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to 19 the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Id. at 499. 20 Here, while Petitioner indicates that the instant Petition concerns both “a conviction 21 and/or sentence” and “prison discipline,” he indicates his challenge is to a disciplinary 22 ruling arising from RVR #7314118 in which he was found guilty of possession of alcohol 23 and was assessed a loss of custody credits, 90 days loss of privileges and loss of 4 years of 24 disciplinary free time. [Doc. No. 1 at 2, 43–54.] As such, Petitioner is attempting to 25 challenge a prison disciplinary proceeding involving a loss of custody credits. Such a 26 challenge could conceivably fall within habeas review if it were to result in immediate or 27 earlier release from custody, but “[i]f the invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings, and 28 therefore the restoration of good-time credits, would not necessarily affect the length of 1 time to be served, then the claim falls outside the core of habeas and may be brought in 2 § 1983.” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citing 3 Muhammad v. Close,

, 754–55 (2004)). Petitioner does not allege that his 4 requested relief, if granted, would result in his earlier or immediate release from 5 imprisonment, and the records submitted with the instant Petition reflect that Petitioner is 6 serving a sentence of 35 years to life. [See Doc. No. 1 at 24.] Moreover, to the extent 7 Petitioner’s challenge is solely to the loss of privileges and loss of disciplinary free time,1 8 any such challenge is plainly “to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or 9 length of his custody.” Preiser,

. 10 Thus, in either event, Petitioner’s claims do not appear cognizable on habeas because 11 it is unclear how they challenge the constitutional validity or duration of his confinement. 12 See

(a); Preiser,

; Heck v. Humphrey,

, 480– 13 85 (1994); see also Nettles,

. 14 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in 16 forma pauperis, [Doc. No. 3], and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. If Petitioner 17 wishes to reopen and proceed with this habeas case by challenging the fact or duration of 18 his confinement, Petitioner must submit, no later than December 29, 2025, a copy of this 19 Order along with BOTH: (1) a completed First Amended Petition form that cures the 20 pleading deficiencies outlined in the instant Order and (2) either the $5.00 fee or adequate 21 proof of Petitioner’s inability to pay the fee. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions 22 of his confinement, he must file a new civil rights action pursuant to

, 23 which will be given a new case number. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner 24 25 26 1 Petitioner only specifically lists the loss of privileges and loss of disciplinary free time as 27 the subject of his challenge, [Doc. No. 1 at 2], but the exhibits attached to the Petition reflect that this disciplinary ruling also resulted in a 120-day loss of custody credits. [Id. 28 1 blank

Amended Habeas Petition form and in forma pauperis application 2 a blank

Civil Rights Complaint form and in forma pauperis 3 || application together with a copy of this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: October 28, 2025

g Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28