Nimesh Shah v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 19, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-03953
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NIMESH SHAH, Case No. 2:21-CV-03953-VAP (AFM)

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WARDEN BURKHOLTZ, 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a federal inmate serving a sentence imposed by the United States 19 District Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF 1 at 2.) He is currently 20 incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California. On 21 May 5, 2021, Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241. 23 The petition does not purport to challenge Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. 24 Instead, it challenges prison conditions. (ECF 1 at 2.) According to Petitioner, 25 officials at FCI Lompoc have failed to provide him with a “no meat” diet consistent 26 with his religious diet (also known as alternative diet program). Specifically, 27 Petitioner alleges that he is a Hindu vegetarian, and he has notified BOP officials of 28 his religious dietary needs with a no-meat food option. Nevertheless, on eleven 1 occasions, petitioner was served meat in his food box, causing him to skip meals and 2 leading him to “starvation.” (ECF 1 at 3-4.) 3 In addition, Petitioner alleges that he was placed in a Covid quarantine unit 4 which was filthy with “food and accessories left by previous inmates, resulting in 5 nausea and vomiting.” (ECF 1 at 4.) Petitioner alleges that the conditions of the 6 isolation unit caused him mental trauma. (ECF 1 at 4.) 7 For the following reasons, the petition is summarily dismissed. See Rule 1(b) 8 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 9 Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Habeas corpus “is the exclusive remedy ... for the prisoner who seeks 12 ‘immediate or speedier release’ from confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 13 525 (2011) (citation omitted). A challenge to the fact or duration of confinement 14 which, if successful, would result in immediate or speedier release falls within the 15 “core” of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-489 (1973); Nettles 16 v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927-929 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). On the other hand, a 17 challenge to the conditions of confinement does not fall within the “core” of habeas 18 corpus; instead, such challenge must be raised in a civil rights action. Nettles, 830 19 F.3d at 931-934. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims, all of which challenge allegedly 20 unlawful conditions of his confinement, may not be brought by way of a habeas 21 corpus action. Petitioner may attempt to assert such claims through a civil rights 22 action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 23 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 24 While a federal court has discretion to construe a habeas corpus petition as a 25 civil rights complaint, Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (per 26 curiam), the Court declines to do so in this case. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (district 27 court may construe a petition for habeas corpus as a civil rights action after notifying 28 and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner). To begin with, the petition does 1 || not appear to name “the correct defendants.” The petition names the United States of 2 || America and the Warden as Respondent, rather than the prison officials of whose 3 || alleged actions or inaction Petitioner complains. See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 4 || 382, 389 (7th Cir. 2005) (federal inmate’s habeas petition challenging deficient 5 || medical care was not amenable to conversion to a civil rights action because inmate 6 || had named the warden as the respondent). 7 More importantly, because a habeas corpus action and a prisoner civil rights 8 || suit differ in a variety of respects — including filing fees and restrictions on future 9 || filings — recharacterization may be “disadvantageous to the prisoner compared to a 10 || dismissal without prejudice of his petition for habeas corpus.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 11 || 935-936 (quoting Robinson y. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011)). 12 || Accordingly, conversion of the present petition into a Bivens complaint would be 13 || inappropriate. See, e.g., Nunez v. Pliler, 2020 WL 5880461, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 14 || 2020) (conversion of habeas corpus petition into a Bivens complaint inappropriate 15 || where petition did not name prison officials and considering significant difference in 16 || procedural requirements between habeas corpus and civil rights actions); Jorgenson 17 || v. Spearman, 2016 WL 2996942, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2016) (declining to 18 || convert petition into a civil rights complaint “in light of the considerable procedural 19 |) and substantive differences between habeas corpus and civil rights matters’). 20 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that this action be dismissed 21 || without prejudice. 22 23 || DATED: May 19, 2021 24 * Q. on

26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD 27 28