Jose O. Arteaga v. M. Palmer

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02208
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JOSE O. ARTEAGA, Case No. 25-cv-2208-BAS-MMP

14 Petitioner, ORDER DIMISSING CASE 15 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

16 M. PALMER, 17 Defendant. 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the 20 case is DIMISSED without prejudice. 21 I. Failure to Satisfy the Filling Fee Requirement 22 This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or 23 qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has not satisfied the filing fee 24 requirement. The Court therefore dismisses the case without prejudice for failure to satisfy 25 the filing fee requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 26 II. Failure to State a Cognizable Habeas Claim 27 A petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not the 28 proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. Under § 2254, a federal court shall 1 entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus “only on the ground that [the petitioner] 2 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 3 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In other words, habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for 4 challenging the legality or duration of confinement, while a civil rights action pursuant to 5 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is typically the proper method to challenge the conditions of prison 6 confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Heck v. 7 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1984) (“[H]abeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state 8 prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or 9 speedier release.”); Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (stating “[a]n inmate’s 10 challenge to the circumstances of his confinement” is brought via a § 1983 action). 11 Here, Petitioner alleges that when he was transferred to R.J. Donovan Correctional 12 Facility from another California prison, officials lost several items of his personal property. 13 (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s claims, however, are not cognizable on federal habeas because 14 they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of his prison confinement.1 See 15 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Heck, 512 U.S. at 481. Therefore, because Petitioner challenges only 16 the conditions of his prison life, and not the fact or length of his custody, he has not stated 17 a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. 18 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court may sua sponte 19 dismiss a habeas action if it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner is not 20 entitled to relief. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). Accordingly, the case is 21 dismissed for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. 22 III. Conclusion 23 Based on the above, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice for failure to 24 satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. If Petitioner 25 wishes to pursue his claims related to the conditions of his confinement, he must do so by 26 27 1 Generally, challenges to the conditions of confinement in state prisons are brought 28 1 || filing a new civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” The Court directs the Clerk of Court 2 || to close the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ~ 5 || DATED: October 28, 2025 (yatta Bahar ke 6 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ||} ———_— 28 The Court notes that the fee for initiating a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is $405.00, which includes a $350.00 filing fee and a $55.00 administrative fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 48