1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTIAGO CASSO, JR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 06-7667 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner, a prisoner at the Alameda County jail, Santa Rita Facility, has
filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the adequacy of
medical care he is receiving at the jail.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice
to filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Supreme
Court has not addressed whether a challenge to a condition of confinement may
be brought under habeas, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6 (1979), the
Ninth Circuit has held that habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action
proper, where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition will not
necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,
859 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the preferred practice in the Ninth Circuit has
Case 3:06-cv-07667-CRB Document 3 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
Casso v. People of the State of California
Doc. 3
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
been that challenges to conditions of confinement be brought in a civil rights
complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights
action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v.
Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas
petition on basis that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be
brought in civil rights complaint).
The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all
pending motions as moot, and close the file. No fee is due.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 18, 2006