United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 16, 2019, Petitioner, a federal prisoner
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution Medium I
(“FCI-1”) prison at Victorville, California,
filed a putative habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 2241. Petitioner alleges that he is suffering from
overcrowded conditions at his place of confinement.
Petitioner, who apparently shares a cell, contends that the
alleged overcrowding is violating the Eighth Amendment and
Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 1060.11. Program
Statement 1060.11 allegedly establishes a maximum capacity of
inmates per housing unit and requires that 50% of cells be
single occupancy. Petitioner seeks injunctive relief
restoring “lawful occupancy levels” and
preventing “illegal crowding in excess of rated
corpus “is the exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner
who seeks ‘immediate or speedier release' from
confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S.
521, 525 (2011) (citation omitted). A challenge to the fact
or duration of confinement which, if successful, would result
in immediate or speedier release falls within the
“core” of habeas corpus. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-89 (1973); Nettles v.
Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc),
cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 645 (2017). A civil rights
action is the exclusive vehicle for an inmate's claim
that does not fall within the “core” of habeas
corpus, such as a challenge to the conditions of confinement.
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d at 931-34. Accordingly,
Petitioner may not use the present habeas corpus Petition to
bring claims regarding allegedly unlawful conditions of
confinement. Petitioner may attempt to assert such claims
through the vehicle of a civil rights action pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Court declines to exercise its discretion to convert the
present Petition into a Bivens complaint. “If
the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning
that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct
relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as
it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the
conversion and provides an opportunity for the litigant to
withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles v.
Grounds, 830 F.3d at 936 (citations and internal
quotations omitted). Here, the Petition is not
“amenable to conversion on its face.” First, the
Petition does not appear to name the “correct
defendants.” Although Plaintiff names the Warden at
FCI-1 and a Unit Manager at FCI-1, the memorandum attached to
the Petition allegedly requiring double-celling for all
inmates bears the name and signature of the “Complex
Warden, ” i.e., the Warden at the Victorville Federal
Correctional Complex at which FCI-1 is only one of three
facilities. See Daley v. U.S., 2011 WL 4500850, at
*1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011) (identifying the three
facilities, including FCI-1). Furthermore, “a habeas
corpus action and a prisoner civil rights suit differ in a
variety of respects - such as . . . filing fees, the means of
collecting them, and restrictions on future filings - that
may make recharacterization impossible or, if possible,
disadvantageous to the prisoner compared to a dismissal
without prejudice of his petition for habeas corpus.”
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d at 935-36 (citations
and internal quotations omitted); see also Id. at
932 n.8 (describing differences between procedural
requirements applicable to habeas corpus actions and to civil
rights actions). Accordingly, conversion of the present
Petition into a Bivens complaint would be
inappropriate. See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382,
388 (7th Cir. 2005) (court relied on myriad differences
between habeas actions and civil rights actions in affirming
district court's refusal to recharacterize a habeas
petition as a civil rights complaint); Jorgenson v.
Spearman, 2016 WL 2996942, at *1 (CD. Cal. May 22, 2016)
(declining to convert a flawed habeas petition into a civil
rights complaint “in light of the considerable
procedural and substantive differences between habeas corpus
and civil rights matters”); see also Thody v.
United States, 2017 WL 6389593, at *2 (CD. Cal. Oct. 26,
2017), adopted, 2017 WL 6389090 (CD. Cal. Dec. 12,
2017) (declining to convert into a Bivens complaint
a section 2241 petition seeking injunctive relief mandating
single celling); Turner v. Ortiz, 2017 WL 1955330,
at *2 (D.N.J. May 11, 2017) (dismissing section 2241 petition
challenging conditions of confinement which included alleged
overcrowding and alleged violation of Program Statement
foregoing reasons, the Petition and the action are dismissed
without leave to amend but without prejudice.
CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
 The Court expresses no opinion
regarding whether a Bivens remedy is available to
Petitioner on the claims alleged in the Petition. See
Ziglar v. Abbasi,137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017) ...