1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIS DAVIS, Case No. 22-cv-03394-JD

8 Petitioner, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 2 10 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., 11 Respondents.

12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

. A review of the petition indicates that petitioner seeks relief under

1983. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 3 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face.”

. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 5 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 6 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 7 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 8 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 9 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 10 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 11 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). 12 LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Petitioner suffers from scoliosis and alleges that prison officials denied him a lower bunk. 14 “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition 15 for habeas corpus,

, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. 16 Stat. § 1979, as amended,

. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to 17 particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547

, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)). “An inmate’s 19 challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id. 20 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier 21 release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (quoting Wilkinson 22 v. Dotson,

(2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus,

(1998); Edwards 23 v. Balisok,

(1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). “Where the 24 prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought 25 under § 1983.’” Skinner,

-34 (quoting Wilkinson,

). 26 Petitioner seeks relief for his medical condition and the denial of a lower bunk. This action 27 does not seek a speedier release from custody, and so is not properly brought in a habeas petition. 1 action. Petitioner has filed a civil rights complaint. 2 Curt records indicate that plaintiff has filed a civil rights action with these same claims. 3 See Davis v. Correctional Health Care Services, Case No. 22-cv-3414 CRB. The original 4 || complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff needs to file an amended complaint in 5 that case. Plaintiff should include all his claims in an amended complaint in Davis v. Correctional 6 || Health Care Services, Case No. 22-cv-3414 CRB. This habeas case is dismissed. 7 CONCLUSION 8 This habeas action is DISMISSED and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 9 || 2)is DENIED. Plaintiff should proceed with all his claims in the other civil rights action in this 10 || Court. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. The Clerk is requested to CLOSE this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 12 Dated: November 14, 2022

14 JAMES TO I5 United Stftes District Judge 16

17

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