Walters v. Garcia
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-06231
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Walters v. Garcia, Judge Orrick ordered Walters to say whether she wants her phone-privileges petition converted from habeas to a civil-rights case.
Federal prisoner Kelly Anne Walters, whose petition seeking restoration of telephone privileges was filed as a habeas case rather than a civil-rights action.
What happened
Walters v. Garcia concerns a petition filed by federal prisoner Kelly Anne Walters under a law used to challenge the lawfulness or duration of incarceration. She seeks restoration of her telephone privileges, not release or a shorter sentence.
The court explained that this request is not properly brought through a habeas case because success would not change the length of her incarceration. Walters may instead pursue the claims through a federal civil-rights action.
The court ordered Walters to respond in writing by February 15, 2022, stating whether she wants the case converted. Judge William H. Orrick warned that continuing as a habeas case would result in dismissal for failure to state a habeas claim, while failing to respond would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Walters v. Garcia · No. 3:21-cv-06231
- William Orrick
- Jan. 4, 2022
Background
Kelly Anne Walters filed this federal action as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge the lawfulness or duration of a federal prisoner’s incarceration. The petition seeks reinstatement of her telephone privileges. The court stated that success on those claims would not affect the length of Walters’s incarceration.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a habeas action is not the proper vehicle for claims that would not affect the duration of confinement. Walters may pursue these claims only through a federal civil-rights action. The court also noted that the Northern District of California may not be the proper forum for challenging Walters’s conviction because the opinion states that she was convicted in the District of Idaho. It explained that federal prisoners generally must seek relief from their convictions in the district of conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless the limited exception allowing a § 2241 petition in the district of confinement applies.
Order
The court directed Walters to inform it in writing by February 15, 2022, whether she wants the court to convert this habeas action into a federal civil-rights action. The court explained that a habeas petition costs $5 to file, while a civil-rights case carries a $402 fee, or $350 if a request to proceed without paying the full fee is granted, and that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act requires the prisoner to pay the fee over time even if that request is granted. The court also explained that a qualifying dismissal of a civil-rights complaint can count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unlike a habeas case.
If Walters chooses to proceed as a civil-rights action, the court stated that it would set deadlines for her to file a civil-rights complaint and either seek permission to proceed without paying the full fee or pay the full fee. If she chooses to continue as a habeas action, the court stated that the action will be dismissed for failure to state a habeas claim. The court further ordered that failure to provide a proper written response by February 15, 2022, would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.