Manzo v. Koenig
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-03538
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Manzo v. Koenig, Judge William Orrick dismissed Manuel Manzo’s habeas case without prejudice after he failed to respond to the court’s order.
The order affects Manuel Manzo’s challenge to his confinement conditions and gives him a stated opportunity to move to reopen the case; it enters judgment in favor of Koenig and closes the file.
What happened
Manuel Manzo filed Manzo v. Koenig under a law used to challenge the legality or length of imprisonment. But his petition challenged prison conditions, including mental-health and medical care, which would not change how long he remains incarcerated.
The court gave Manzo a choice: convert the case into a civil-rights lawsuit or continue pursuing it as a habeas case. Manzo did not respond by the deadline, so the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to prosecute. The judgment favored Koenig, and the file was closed.
Judge William Orrick said Manzo may ask to reopen the case. Any such motion must be labeled “MOTION TO REOPEN” on its first page and state which of the two options Manzo wants to pursue.
The detailed version
- Manzo v. Koenig · No. 3:21-cv-03538
- William Orrick
- Nov. 29, 2021
Background
Manuel Manzo filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging the lawfulness or duration of a person’s incarceration. The court reviewed the petition and determined that Manzo was instead challenging the conditions of confinement, including allegedly inadequate mental-health and medical care. Because success on those claims would not affect the length of his incarceration, the court concluded that the claims were not properly brought in a § 2254 habeas action.
Court’s order
On September 10, 2021, the court ordered Manzo to respond by November 1, 2021 and state whether he wanted to (1) convert the case into a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or (2) continue pursuing it under § 2254. The court warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he did not respond. Manzo filed no response.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar a later request to reopen the case. The court directed that any motion to reopen must include the words “MOTION TO REOPEN” on its first page and a written statement identifying whether Manzo chooses Option (1) or Option (2). The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Koenig and close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.