1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 DEAN HIMBLER AVILES, ) Case No. CV 20-1943-JGB (JPR) ) 11 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 12 v. ) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ) ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE 13 HERIBERTO H. TELLEZ et ) al., ) 14 ) Respondents. ) 15 16 On February 27, 2020, Petitioner filed what he styled as a 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

. The 18 next day he was acquitted of all charges after a jury trial in 19 this District. See United States v. Aviles, No. CR 18-0175-CAS 20 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 29, 2018), ECF No. 99. In the “Petition,” 21 he challenges his jailers’ handling of his mail, claiming that 22 they are intentionally delaying it so as to obstruct court cases 23 he has filed. (Pet. at 3-4.) He acknowledges that his Petition 24 “concerns jail or prison conditions, not a conviction or 25 sentence.” (Id. at 5.) 26 The Petition is a disguised civil-rights action and must be 27 filed as such. Habeas corpus “is the exclusive remedy . . . for 28 the prisoner who seeks ‘immediate or speedier release’ from 1 1 confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) 2 (citation omitted). A challenge to the fact or duration of 3 confinement that would, if successful, result in immediate or 4 speedier release falls within the “core” of habeas corpus. 5 Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). A civil-rights 6 action — not a habeas petition — is the exclusive vehicle for a 7 state prisoner’s claim that does not fall within this “core.” 8 See Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en 9 banc). When success on a prisoner’s claims “would not 10 necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from 11 confinement,” such claims do not fall within “the core of habeas 12 corpus” and must be brought in a civil-rights action.

at 935 13 (citation omitted); see also Nelson v. Campbell,

, 14 643 (2004). 15 Nettles explicitly declined to address whether a civil- 16 rights action is the exclusive vehicle for a federal, as opposed 17 to state, prisoner’s challenge to the conditions of his 18 confinement, see

, but post-Nettles decisions 19 provide no reason to think that such claims are properly brought 20 in a § 2241 petition. See Wright v. Shartle,

, 21 733 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal as noncognizable of 22 federal inmate’s petition claiming BOP officials 23 unconstitutionally tampered with his mail and denied him 24 privileges; finding that “the appropriate remedy for [those] 25 claims lies in a civil-rights action under” Bivens v. Six Unknown 26 Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971)) 27 (citing cases); Schreane v. Matevousian, No. 1:17-cv-01217-AWI- 28 EPG-HC,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2018) (applying 2 1 Nettles to federal prisoner’s petition alleging unconstitutional 2 lockdowns, interference with mail, and denial of hygiene 3 products), accepted by

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018); 4 Thody v. United States, No. EDCV 17–2024–PA (DFM),

6389593, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017) (applying Nettles to 6 habeas petition brought by federal inmate seeking single-cell 7 status), accepted by

(C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017). 8 But see Spring v. Langford, No. CV 16–04664–JLS (DTB),

3326973, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2017) (finding that Nettles did 10 not preclude jurisdiction over § 2241 petition that raised no 11 constitutional claims and challenged only BOP’s attempt to 12 collect restitution payments; dismissing action on merits), 13 accepted by

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2017), aff’d, No. 14 17-56238,

(9th Cir. May 18, 2018). 15 Under some circumstances a court may choose to convert a 16 flawed habeas petition into a civil-rights action. See 17 Wilwording v. Swenson,

(1971) (per curiam), 18 superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Woodford v. 19 Ngo,

(2006). But a civil-rights complaint 20 differs from a habeas action in several ways, including the 21 “proper defendant, filing fees, the means of collecting them, and 22 restrictions on future filings,” which “may make 23 recharacterization impossible” or “disadvantageous” to the 24 petitioner. Nettles,

. 25 Because Petitioner challenges the conditions of his 26 confinement and not any particular conviction or sentence, his 27 claim must be brought in a civil-rights action. The Court 28 declines to construe the Petition as one, for several reasons. 3 1 | Petitioner may be seeking to avoid paying the $350 filing fee for such lawsuits by raising his claims in a habeas petition rather 3 |} than a civil complaint, or as a serial filer of lawsuits that 4] have been dismissed as frivolous, see, e.g., Aviles v_ Capels, No. 5 SACV 17-1962-AG (JPR) (C.D. Cal. dismissed Nov. 9, 2017); Aviles- 6 | Rothchild v. 300 N. Los Angeles St. Bldg., No. CV 18-10460-AG (JPR) (C.D. Cal. dismissed Dec. 20, 2018), he may want to avoid 8 || having this lawsuit be subject to the “strike” provision of 28 9]}U.S.C. § 1915(g).* See Andrews v. King,

, 1122 n.12 10] (9th Cir. 2005) (as amended) (recognizing that some habeas 11 | petitioners are actually civil-rights plaintiffs seeking to avoid 12 | statutory limitations on serial complaints). 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition 14 |} be summarily dismissed under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 15 ||} § 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts. See also C.D. Cal. R. 16] 72-3.2 (“The Magistrate Judge promptly shall examine a petition 17 | for writ of habeas corpus, and if it plainly appears from the 18 || face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the 19 |] petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Magistrate Judge may 20 | prepare a proposed order for summary dismissal and submit it and 21 proposed judgment to the District Judge.”) 22 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED She [ 23 || DATED: March 9, 2020 — JESUS G. SRNAL 24 U.S. DISRKAICT JUDGE Presented by: 25 breed 26 fe Rosenbluth U.S. Magistrate Judge 27 28 “Petitioner has paid the $5 filing fee for habeas petitions.