-WVG Williams v. Hedgpeth, No. 3:2009cv02611 - Document 9 (S.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER denying 8 Motion for Extension of Time and Directing entry of final judgment. This action remains Dismissed without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Court's December 1, 2009 Order of dismissal. Petitioner remains free to prese nt his claims in a new action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if he wishes, which will be given a separate civil case number. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 3/1/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao) (jrl).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-WVG Williams v. Hedgpeth Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHADALE L. WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 Civil No. 09cv2611-DMS (WVG) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT v. HEDGPETH, A., Warden, Respondent. 15 16 On November 4, 2009, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 17 a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court for the Eastern 18 District of California. (Doc. No. 1) The case was subsequently transferred to this Court because 19 Petitioner appeared to be challenging a disciplinary proceeding which occurred while he was 20 confined in the Southern District of California. (Doc. No. 2.) 21 On December 1, 2009, the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice because 22 Petitioner had failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and had failed to allege exhaustion of 23 state court remedies as to any claim presented in the Petition. (Doc. No. 6.) The Petition was 24 dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner to file a First Amended Petition which alleged 25 exhaustion of his state court remedies on or before January 11, 2010, and requiring him to satisfy 26 the filing fee provision by that date. (See 12/1/09 Order at 1-3.) Petitioner was specifically 27 warned that if he was unable to allege exhaustion of his state court remedies by January 11, 28 2010, and he still wished to pursue his claims in a habeas petition, he would have to start over K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2611-DenyExtension.wpd, 3110 -1- 09cv2611 Dockets.Justia.com 1 by filing a new petition which would be assigned a new civil case number. (See id. at 3.) In 2 addition, because it appeared that Petitioner had not even attempted to exhaust his state court 3 remedies prior to initiating this action, and appeared to be presenting a claim challenging the 4 conditions of his confinement rather than his continued incarceration, the dismissal was without 5 prejudice to Petitioner to present his claims in a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which 6 generally does not require exhaustion of state court remedies.1 (See id. at 2-3.) 7 On December 17, 2009, Petitioner submitted a copy of his inmate trust account, which 8 demonstrated that he had no funds on account at the institution where he was housed, apparently 9 in an attempt to demonstrate his inability to pay the filing fee. (Doc. No. 7.) Rather than file 10 an amended petition alleging exhaustion of state court remedies, however, he filed the instant 11 Motion for an Extension of Time. (Doc. No. 8.) 12 Because Petitioner does not appear to be challenging his continued incarceration, and 13 because it appears that he failed to exhaust his state court remedies prior to initiating this action, 14 Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for an extension of time to file an amended petition.2 15 Rather, Petitioner was warned that failure to allege exhaustion of state court remedies by January 16 11, 2010, would result in his having to initiate new habeas proceedings if he wished to proceed 17 pursuant to § 2254, or to initiate a civil rights complaint if he wished to proceed with his claims 18 pursuant to § 1983. 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner appears to allege that the refusal of prison authorities to change his single-cell status due to his sexual orientation violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. (Pet. at 5-5f.) Petitioner was informed that challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, whereas challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). Petitioner was also informed that when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499. 2 Petitioner apparently presented his claim to the state supreme court in response to the dismissal of this action. According to the California Supreme Court website, Petitioner filed a habeas petition on December 15, 2009. See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov (last visited Feb. 26, 2010); see also Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (court may take judicial notice of relevant state court documents). -209cv2611 K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2611-DenyExtension.wpd, 3110 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 1 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for an Extension of Time. 3 [Doc. No. 8]. This action REMAINS DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth 4 in the Court’s December 1, 2009 Order of dismissal. Furthermore, because Petitioner did not 5 amend his petition in a timely manner, and for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s 6 December 1, 2009 Order of dismissal, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment of 7 dismissal of this case without prejudice. Petitioner remains free to present his claims in a new 8 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if he wishes, which will be given a 9 separate civil case number. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 DATED: March 1, 2010 13 HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 CC: ALL PARTIES 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2611-DenyExtension.wpd, 3110 -3- 09cv2611
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
