1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, Case No. 21-cv-03658-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 13

14 ROSEMARY OROZCO, et al., Dkt. No. 5 Respondents. 15

16 17 This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a 18 challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner Antoine Deshawn Barnes’s 19 incarceration. A review of the petition, however, shows that Barnes asks to have 20 television journalists at the KTVU television station arrested and brought up on criminal 21 charges. Because success on such a request will not affect the length of his incarceration, 22 it is not the proper subject of a habeas action. See Badea v. Cox,

(9th 23 Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action proper mechanism for challenging “legality or duration” 24 of confinement). 25 In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a complaint under 42

complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson,

(1971). However, 27 this is not such a case. The persons named as respondents are not state actors, and 1 Accordingly, this federal habeas action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall terminate 2 || all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of respondents, and close the file. 3 Barnes’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 5.) 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 5 |] Dated: June 22, 2021 \ ® 6 LLIAM H. ORRICK 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 qa 12

© 15 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28