1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 K. MWASI, Case No. 22-cv-00974-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 2 10 TROY TAIRA, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. 14 DISCUSSION 15 STANDARD OF REVIEW 16 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 17 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 19 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 20 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 21 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 22 Cir. 1990). 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 24 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 25 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 26 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 27 cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 1 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 2 face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 3 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 4 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 5 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 6 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 7 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 8 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 9 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). 10 LEGAL CLAIMS 11 Plaintiff seeks habeas relief in this civil rights action. “‘Federal law opens two main 12 avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus,

2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42

. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration 15 are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough,

(2006) (quoting 16 Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of 17 his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id. 18 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier 19 release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (quoting Wilkinson 20 v. Dotson,

(2005)); see Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). “Where 21 the prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought 22 under § 1983.’” Skinner,

-34 (quoting Wilkinson,

). In fact, a § 1983 23 action is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 24 corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 25 U.S. at 487). A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted unless it is within 26 the core of habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from confinement or 27 shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Preiser, 411 1 Plaintiff challenges his 2020 denial of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings. For relief 2 || he seeks to be released from prison. To seek release from custody, plaintiff must file a habeas 3 petition after he has properly exhausted his claims in state court. While a district court may 4 || construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil 5 rights action under

, see Wilwording v. Swenson,

(1971), the 6 || opposite is not true, however: A civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed 7 without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v. City of 8 || Santa Rosa,

(9th Cir. 1995). 9 CONCLUSION 10 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and plaintiff may file a habeas petition 11 once he has properly exhausted his claims in state court. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis 12 (Dkt. No. 2)is VACATED. No fee is due. 13 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: February 23, 2022 16

=fZ— JAMES ATO Z 18 United Stes District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28