Opinion
No. C 05-3426 MMC (PR), (Docket Nos. 2, 4 5).
October 25, 2005
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Victor Bravo, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
Petitioner alleges that prison officials are violating his civil rights in various ways, including diagnosing him with mental illness, planning to transfer him to another institution, tampering with his mail, and unfairly disciplining him. The preferred practice in this Circuit is that such challenges to the conditions of an inmate's confinement be brought in a civil rights complaint, not in a habeas petition. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); see also Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that "habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence"). As petitioner's claims do not affect the fact or duration of his custody, he may bring his claims in a civil rights complaint, but not in a habeas petition.
In light of the foregoing, the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to petitioner's raising his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a civil rights action.
In this same action, petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandate, in which he requests that the Court order state prison officials to either comply with his demands for improved conditions in the prison or release him from prison. Petitioner has cited no jurisdictional basis, and the Court is not aware of any, for issuance of such a writ. The federal mandamus statute provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). Section 1361 does not apply to the instant petition because petitioner seeks to compel action by state prison officials, not federal officials. See, e.g., Newton v. Poindexter, 578 F. Supp. 277, 279 (C.D. Cal. 1984) (holding § 1361 has no application to state officers or employees). Nor does the federal All Writs Act ("Act") provide jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandate petitioner seeks. The Act provides, in relevant part: "The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Under this authority, the writ of mandamus has traditionally been used in the federal courts "only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so." See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, petitioner does not seek to compel action from an inferior court, but rather from state officials.
Due to the absence of a jurisdictional basis for the Court to issue the writ of mandate petitioner seeks, the petition for such a writ is DENIED.
The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 4 and 5.
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.