Tripplett v. San Diego County Sheriff's Department

1
26-cv-1087-WQH-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JIOVANNI TRIPPLETT,
Petitioner,
v.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26-cv-1087-WQH-DEB
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
HAYES, Judge:
Jiovanni 	Tripplett 	(“Petitioner”), 	currently 	incarcerated 	at 	the George 	Bailey
Detention Facility and proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court
DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not moved to proceed in forma
pauperis. Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing
fee or has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, see R. 3(a), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases (2019), this case is subject to dismissal for failure to satisfy the filing fee
requirement.
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-01087-WQH-DEB Document 2 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26-cv-1087-WQH-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT
In addition, Petitioner fails to name a proper respondent. In federal habeas cases, a
state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of them as the respondent. Ortiz-
Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing R. 2, Rules Governing § 2254
Cases (2019)). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to
name a proper respondent. See id.
“[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the institution in
which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal
institutions.’” 	Id. 	(quoting 	R. 2, Rules Governing 	§ 	2254 Cases 	(2019), advisory
committee’s note). Petitioner has named “San Diego County Sheriff’s Department” as
Respondent. For the Court to proceed, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the
state correctional facility in which Petitioner is currently confined or the Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982
F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM
The Petition is also subject to dismissal because a petition for writ of habeas corpus
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claim Petitioner
presents. 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; 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). “[W]hen 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.
Here, Petitioner indicates that the Petition concerns “prison discipline” rather than a
challenge to Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Specifically, Petitioner
Case 3:26-cv-01087-WQH-DEB Document 2 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26-cv-1087-WQH-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
alleges that a jail deputy, Corporal Rodriguez, “exhibited racial and gender bias against
me” and subjected Petitioner to cruel and unusual punishment; Petitioner requests the
deputy “be transferred and a stay away order.” Id. at 3. This claim is not cognizable on
habeas because it is unclear how it challenges the constitutional validity or duration of
Petitioner’s confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
Because Petitioner’s challenge appears to be only to the conditions of confinement
and not to the fact or length of Petitioner’s custody, the claim is not cognizable on habeas
corpus review and must instead be brought, “if at all,” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[W]e hold that if a state
prisoner’s claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus,’ it may not be brought in habeas
corpus but must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.”) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487
and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011)).
POTENTIAL CONVERSION TO SECTION 19831
The Court also finds the Petition is not amenable to conversion to a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Petitioner names the San Diego Sheriff’s Department as
Respondent and identifies the deputy purportedly involved only in the body of this pleading
rather than naming that individual as a defendant. See ECF No. 1 at 3; Nettles, 830 F.3d at
936 (“‘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.’”) (quoting Glaus
v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th
Cir. 1988) (“The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and
1 The Court also notes that a habeas action involves a significantly different requisite filing fee than a civil action.
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application
for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional
administrative fee of $55, although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec.
1, 2023)). Meanwhile, “on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee shall be $5.” Id.
Case 3:26-cv-01087-WQH-DEB Document 2 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26-cv-1087-WQH-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have
caused a constitutional deprivation.”) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370–71
(1976)).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the instant habeas case without prejudice for
failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a proper Respondent on federal
habeas corpus, and failure to state a cognizable habeas corpus claim. The dismissal is also
without prejudice to Petitioner raising this challenge in a new civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be given a new case number.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank In Forma Pauperis
Application and a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint form together with a
copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01087-WQH-DEB Document 2 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4