1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARK LYDELL DIXON, V96657, Case No. 21-cv-03350-CRB (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 9 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 10 WARDEN, APPEALABILITY 11 Respondent.

12 I. 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Medical Facility (CMF) in 14 Vacaville, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

15 challenging the decision of CMF medical officials to involuntarily medicate him. 16 II. 17 Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on claims related to imprisonment: a petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus under

, and a complaint for violation of federal civil 19 rights under

. Hill v. McDonough,

(2006). Habeas is the 20 “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier release from confinement.” 21 Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 22 Where the prisoner’s claim “would not necessarily spell speedier release, however, suit may be 23 brought under § 1983.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, a § 1983 action 24 is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 25 corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser v. 26 Rodriguez,

(1973)). 27 Here, petitioner seeks relief from the decision of CMF medical officials to involuntarily ] state administrative law judge. But success on petitioner’s challenge — an order invalidating the 2 || decision of CMF medical officials to involuntarily medicate him — would not necessarily lead to 3 his immediate or earlier release from confinement. See Skinner,

. Put simply, 4 || petitioner’s challenge to the decision of CMF medical officials to involuntarily medicate him does 5 || not fall within the “core of habeas corpus” and consequently “must be brought, if at all, under § 6 1983.” Nettles,

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 7 HI. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

9 || challenging the decision of CMF medical officials to involuntarily medicate him is DISMISSED 10 || without prejudice to bringing a civil rights complaint under

in the United States 11 District Court for the Eastern District of California, in whose venue CMF lies and the pertinent 12 || prison medical officials presumably reside. See

(b). 13 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of 14 || appealability (COA) under

(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “jurists 8 15 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 16 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was i 17 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (emphasis added). Zz 18 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 25, 2021 21 za K wor CHARLES R. BREYER 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28