1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00816-LAB-DEB

12 Petitioner,

ORDER:

13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEP’T.,

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

15 Respondent. [Dkt. 2]

16 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND

18 19 On May 31, 2022, Petitioner Tommy Lee Williams, a state prisoner 20 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254, (Dkt. 1, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”)), and a motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 2). 23 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 Petitioner filed a prison certificate in support of his motion to proceed in forma 25 pauperis, which reflects a $703.80 balance in his prison trust account. (Dkt. 2 at 26 5). The filing fee associated with this type of action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1914(a). Thus, it appears Petitioner can pay the requisite filing fee. Accordingly, 28 the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 II. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM 2 A petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the 3 proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. Challenges to the fact or duration 4 of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 5 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to 6 the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 7 488–500 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016). When a 8 state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, 9 and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release 10 or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 11 habeas corpus. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. On the other 12 hand, a § 1983 action is the proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a 13 constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or 14 length of his custody. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. 15 Here, Petitioner alleges, in part, that jail personnel are creating “false incident 16 reports,” unlawfully taking his Veteran’s Administration checks, and allowing 17 inmates to take drugs. (Pet. at 6–20). He also alleges that he was “thrown in Ad 18 Seg”; denied access to a shower, a doctor, and his lawyer; deprived of sleep; and 19 given dirty razors and laundry. (Id.). Petitioner’s claims aren’t cognizable on 20 habeas because they don’t challenge the constitutional validity or duration of his 21 confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Heck v. 22 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480–85 (1994); Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. Instead, he 23 challenges the conditions of his prison life. Thus, Petitioner hasn’t stated a 24 cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed 27 in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 2), and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 28 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of 1 confinement, he must file a new civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which 2 be given a new case number. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail 3 || Petitioner a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint form together with a copy 4 || of this Order." 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. (anu bun 7 Dated: July 6, 2022 A Wy 8 Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||' Petitioner filed a separate habeas corpus petition in this Court in Case No. 3:22- 26 cv-00524-GPC-NLS, which challenges the same conviction as Petitioner seeks to challenge in this case; the Court dismissed that case on abstention grounds. See 27 || Williams v. Fisher, S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:22-cv-00524-GPC-NLS, Dkt. 2. Petitioner 28 is advised that should he seek to challenge his state court criminal proceedings in this case, it will also be subject to dismissal on abstention grounds.