MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
ANDREW J. WISTRICH, Magistrate Judge.
On October 28, 2013, petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges the following as grounds for relief:
Affidavit of complaint of a tort crime, a civil wrong intentional[ly] done, w[h]ich causes injury and damage to I Christopher Deshawn Butler and daughter S.N.B. Things that are protected by law. Against the above defendants, abduction criminal wrongful act of force by taking away another person through fraud, persuasion of violence. Foreng [sic] I to do business without a contract agreement, no notary enpowered [sic] to witness and certify documents. No federal copy rights [sic] law.
Complaint against the above Defendants for violating Christopher Deshawn Butler Constitution on 05-14-2013 Case #RIF10304187 #JU131340063. Judicial immunity is not provided under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state courts may be sued for such relief.
Complaint against the above Defendants. For not being in a Federal Jurisdiction. Plac[ing] the public official in high misdemeanor and also for violating all of my Constitutional Rights. The above Defendants as being holding] I Christopher Deshawn Butler, without bail. Amendment VIII - Excessive Bail, Amendment XIV - Citizenship; Privileges and Immunities. Due Process: Equal Protection. Article VI - Debts Validated - Supreme Law of Land - Oath of Office. Also Requesting 832.5 Citizens Complaints against Peace Offices....
[Petition at 2-3].
As relief, petitioner requests (1) "a trial by jury for this tort crime;" (2) "that my daughter S.N.B. is given back;" (3) imposition of a "not for profit fine on all of the above defendants of 30, 000, 000 each for [sic] the healing process can finally begin;" and (4) the federal government protect the Constitution by arresting and charging "any and all" for conspiracy, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. [Petition at 7].
For the following reasons, the petition is subject to summary dismissal.
To begin with, it is not clear whether or why petitioner is in custody. Assuming petitioner is (or was) in custody and seeks to challenge the legality of that custody, the Court cannot discern the factual or legal basis for petitioner's claims. Instead, petitioner's allegations are vague, conclusory, and unintelligible.
Further, to the extent that petitioner's allegations are comprehensible, they do not appear to be related to the constitutional validity of petitioner's current custody. Therefore, these allegations cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas relief. See Wilkinson v. Dobson , 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (noting that as a general rule, a claim challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement should be presented in a habeas corpus petition, while a claim challenging the conditions of confinement should be presented in a civil rights action); Ramirez v. Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 858-859 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that where a petitioner's claims, even if successful, would not shorten the duration of his custody, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §2254 is absent), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1063 (2004).
Based upon the foregoing deficiencies, the petition is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. Petitioner shall, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, file an amended petition curing the deficiencies noted above. The amended petition shall be filed on the forms provided by the Clerk and shall bear the case number EDCV 13-2153-MWF(AJW), shall include information regarding the conviction or decision petitioner intends to challenge, shall provide the specific legal and factual basis for his claims for relief, and shall indicate whether he has presented each claim to the California ...