1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, Case No. 21-cv-04439-WHO (PR) 5 Petitioner, v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

7 ROSEMARY OROZCO, et al., g Respondents. 9 10 This federal action was filed as a

petition for writ of habeas 11 || corpus, that is, as a challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner Antoine Deshawn 12 || Barnes’s incarceration. A review of the petition, however, shows that Barnes asks to have 5 13 || atelevision journalist arrested, investigated, and her property seized and searched. S 14 || Because success on such a request will not affect the length of his incarceration, his claims 3 15 || are not the proper subject of a habeas action. See Badea v. Cox,

(9th a 16 || Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action proper mechanism for challenging “legality or duration” 17 || of confinement). In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a complaint 18 || under

. Wilwording v. Swenson,

(1971). However, 19 || this is not such a case. The persons named as respondents are not state actors, and 20 || therefore are not liable under § 1983. Gomez v. Toledo,

(1980). 21 Accordingly, this federal habeas action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter 22 || judgment in favor of respondents and close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: July 21, 2021 YMOe 25 AM H. ORRICK 26 United States District Judge 27 28