Smith v. Adams
Opinion
1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jun 11, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 CHRISTOPHER LEON SMITH, NO: 2:25-CV-0153-TOR 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v.
10 CUS ADAMS and ROB JACKSON,
11 Respondents.
13 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Washington State Penitentiary, submitted this pro 14 se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 12, 2025. 15 ECF No. 1. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Respondents have not been served. 16 As an initial matter, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 would be the exclusive vehicle for a 17 habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, 18 even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court conviction. 19 White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other 20 grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), overruled 1 on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). Even if brought 2 under § 2254, however, this petition does not challenge a harm that falls within “the
3 core of habeas corpus.” See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). 4 Petitioner does not seek his “immediate or more speedy release” from confinement. 5 See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973). Therefore, for the reasons set
6 forth below, the petition will be dismissed. 7 Petitioner indicates that he is serving a 2009 Pierce County sentence. ECF 8 No. 1 at 1. Nevertheless, his allegations challenge the conditions of his confinement, 9 rather than his conviction and sentence. As relief he requests his “release” to BAR
10 units or to a facility where his diabetes can be regulated, and the restoration of 11 privileges. Id. at 7. He also seeks unspecified monetary damages and to enjoin 12 retaliation. Id. Damages, however, are not an available remedy in the federal habeas
13 corpus context. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (noting that 14 “damages are not an available habeas remedy”). 15 Petitioner asserts, “after serving pending houseing review no privilleges, no 16 recreation A.D.A. Diedbeatis violation no walker, molding cell, no realease to BAR
17 units or transfer. I have Diedbeatis low imune system.” Id. at 1 (as written in 18 original). He seems to challenge the diabetic care he is receiving, claiming it is in 19 retaliation for a lawsuit he filed asserting hazardous living conditions. Id. at 2. He
20 claims that the Unit Supervisor, C.U.S. Adams, “allowed no level no privileges no 1 A.D.A. rights to regulate exercise in yard with my walker.” Id. He asserts that since 2 April 22, 2025, he has received no response. Id.
3 By this action, Plaintiff asserts hazardous living conditions, including the 4 presence of black mold in his cell, although he also indicates his A.D.A. cell was 5 “bleached” on April 25, 2025, and he filed a grievance. Id. at 6. Petitioner declares
6 that he is an insulin-dependent, type 2 diabetic. Id. He claims that since his “arrival” 7 on April 22, 2025, he has not been given his morning insulin injections until after 8 8:30, and he has not been allowed to use his walker to regulate his diabetes. Id. He 9 indicates that the walker has been “put in my property.” Id. He contends that CUS
10 Adams refuses to allow Petitioner to participate in programs and services. Id. at 7. 11 Attachments to the petition indicate that Petitioner was placed in administrative 12 segregation for fighting on March 18, 2025. Id. at 9-10.
13 Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, rather than the 14 duration of his confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 Therefore, a habeas corpus petition is not the appropriate mechanism for bringing 16 his claims. A “challenge [to] disciplinary procedures having only a speculative or
17 incidental effect on the length of [prisoner’s] sentence” is not “close to the core of 18 habeas corpus,” and is cognizable under section 1983. Sisk v. CSO Branch, 974 F.2d 19 116, 117 18 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted).
20 1 Because Petitioner is not challenging his conviction or sentence, his proper 2 remedy lies in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Sisk, 974 F.2d at 117. The
3 Court, however, will not convert Petitioner’s action into an action under 42 U.S.C. 4 § 1983 for the reasons that follow. 5 There are substantial differences in the filing fees owed in habeas actions and
6 in civil rights actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Habeas and § 1983 claims are 7 subject to different exhaustion requirements and a litigant’s failure to properly 8 exhaust a § 1983 claim could result in dismissal. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 932 n. 8 9 (“The procedural requirements imposed by AEDPA and the PLRA are distinct in
10 substantial respects.”). 11 In addition, § 1983 claims are subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s 12 (“PLRA”) three strikes rule. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534 (2015)
13 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and explaining “a special ‘three strikes’ provision 14 prevents a court from affording in forma pauperis status where the litigant is a 15 prisoner and he or she ‘has on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated ..., brought 16 an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the
17 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 18 may be granted.”). Therefore, the Court will not convert this action into one under 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20 l Because Petitioner’s claims do not lie at “the core of habeas corpus,” he may 2|| not proceed with this habeas action against the named Respondents. If Petitioner 3|| wishes to file a new and separate civil rights complaint he may do so. He will then 4|| be subject to the filing and in forma pauperis requirements of the PLRA. 5 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. The Petition, ECF No. 1, is SUMMARILY DISMISSED under Rule 7 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 8 Courts, but without prejudice to Mr. Smith filing a new and separate 9 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10 2. The Court certifies that there is no basis upon which to issue a 11 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Adams (Smith v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.