1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OLIVEIRA DOS SANTOS, Case No. 21-cv-04224-JD

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, Respondent. 11

12 13 Petitioner, a patient at Napa State Hospital, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 14 corpus pursuant to

. Petitioner was convicted in San Mateo County, which is in 15 this district, so venue is proper here. See

(d). 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 19 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 20 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a); Rose v. 21 Hodges,

(1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 22 requirements. McFarland v. Scott,

(1994). An application for a federal writ of 23 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 24 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 25 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,

. “‘[N]otice’ 26 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 27 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d LEGAL CLAIMS 1 Petitioner seeks relief regarding the conditions of his confinement and his underlying 2 conviction. “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to 3 imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus,

, and a complaint under the Civil 4 Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended,

. Challenges to the 5 lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas 6 corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough,

(2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may 8 be brought under § 1983.” Id. 9 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier 10 release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (quoting Wilkinson 11 v. Dotson,

(2005)); see Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). “Where 12 the prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought 13 under § 1983.’” Skinner,

-34 (quoting Wilkinson,

). In fact, a § 14 1983 action is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of 15 habeas corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting 16 Preiser,

). A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted 17 unless it is within the core of habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from 18 confinement or shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown,

(9th Cir. 2014) 19 (citing Preiser,

). 20 Petitioner has not exhausted the habeas claims in state court. He has presented claims only 21 to the Ninth Circuit and the State Bar of California. Prisoners in state custody who wish to 22 challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings the fact or length of their confinement are 23 required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral 24 proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the 25 merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See

(b), (c); 26 Rose v. Lundy,

(1982). The habeas action is dismissed without prejudice. 27 1 Petitioner may file a federal petition in this Court once the California Supreme Court has ruled on 2 || his claims. 3 Petitioner’s claims about the conditions of his confinement are dismissed without 4 || prejudice, and plaintiff may file a separate civil rights action. If plaintiff files a civil rights action, 5 he must identify specific defendants and describe how they violated his constitutional rights. 6 Simply stating that he was unable to file a grievance, without more information, is insufficient. 7 CONCLUSION 8 1. Petitioner is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, but this action is DISMISSED 9 without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 10 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 8, 2021

14 JAMES ATO IS United Sites District Judge 16

17

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