ORDER: (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Along with his Petition, Petitioner submitted a copy of his prison trust account statement, which this Court liberally construes as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has $0.03 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
Nonetheless, the Petition must be dismissed without prejudice, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, because Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the United States.
Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a "judgment of a State court," and that he is in custody in "violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. Petitioner seeks only to have this Court order the state court to provide him with the trial transcripts related to his 1994 conviction in San Diego Superior Court. Petitioner's claim is not cognizable on habeas because it challenge the constitutional validity or duration of Petitioner's confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). "Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state court judgments." McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F.Supp. 284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974).
In no way does Petitioner he challenge the fact or duration of his conviction, nor does he claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal rights.
Based on the foregoing, the Court