Filed: Aug. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . In 2011, Rajdeep Singh was sentenced to 146 months' incarceration after pleading guilty to drug related charges. 1 On November 17, 2014, he filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which the court denied on March 11, 2015. ECF Nos. 288, 290. On July 13, 2015, the court received a letter from Singh regarding the conditions of his confinement at Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas. ECF No. 294. He details vari
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . In 2011, Rajdeep Singh was sentenced to 146 months' incarceration after pleading guilty to drug related charges. 1 On November 17, 2014, he filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which the court denied on March 11, 2015. ECF Nos. 288, 290. On July 13, 2015, the court received a letter from Singh regarding the conditions of his confinement at Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas. ECF No. 294. He details vario..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
In 2011, Rajdeep Singh was sentenced to 146 months' incarceration after pleading guilty to drug related charges.1 On November 17, 2014, he filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which the court denied on March 11, 2015. ECF Nos. 288, 290. On July 13, 2015, the court received a letter from Singh regarding the conditions of his confinement at Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas. ECF No. 294. He details various "horrific" conditions, asserts he is subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" and asks the court to "help [him] by investigating this prison for human and constitutional rights violations. . . ." Id. He asserts constitutional violations related to access to prison facilities and programs, religious and racial discrimination, favoritism, and issues with the facility's administrative process. Because Singh challenges the conditions of his confinement and does not raise claims seeking immediate or speedier release, his letter is best construed as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenges to conditions of confinement by state prisoners should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus petition); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 74 (2005) ("Section 1983 remains available for procedural challenges where success would not necessarily spell immediate or speedier release for the prisoner. . . .). In the federal context, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides petitioners with a remedy for civil rights violations by federal actors.
Because Singh is located in the Western District of Texas and his claims arise from actions in that district, this district is not the proper venue for his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also Kelso v. Dir. of California Dep't of Corr., No. 09CV2569-DMS (CAB), 2009 WL 4039789, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2009) (dismissing a challenge to conditions of confinement where prisoner is housed in different district); Hill v. Miller, No. 12CV2563-LAB RBB, 2012 WL 5373431, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (same).
Because the court lacks jurisdiction, it DISMISSES Singh's complaint to the extent it is intended to initiate a Bivens action. This dismissal is without prejudice to Singh filing his complaint regarding the conditions of his confinement in a district with proper jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
