1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CHRISTOPHER A. HICKSON, Case No. 23-cv-03233-RMI

6 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 7 v. TO AMEND

8 RON BROOMFIELD, Re: Dkt. No. 4 Respondent. 9

10 11 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 12 to

. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (dkt. 4) 13 BACKGROUND 14 Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary finding at San Quentin State Prison. (dkt. 1 at 7). 15 The Marin County Superior Court denied a habeas petition seeking relief. (dkt. 1 at 7-8). 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 25 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 26 “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 27 possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 1 Legal Claims 2 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that there was insufficient evidence 3 to find him guilty relating to a prison disciplinary finding. However, Petitioner provides no 4 information regarding the punishment he received and if he lost time credits with respect to his 5 sentence. 6 “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a 7 petition for habeas corpus,

, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 8 Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended,

. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or 9 to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547

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

(2004)). “An inmate’s 11 challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id. 12 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier 13 release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. 14 Dotson,

(2005)); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). “Where the 15 prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought 16 under § 1983.’” Skinner,

-34 (quoting Wilkinson,

). In fact, a § 1983 17 action is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 18 corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 19 U.S. at 487). A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted unless it is within 20 the core of habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from confinement or 21 shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Preiser, 411 22 U.S. at 500). 23 Habeas is not the proper remedy to challenge a disciplinary finding where reversal of the 24 finding would not necessarily lead to a grant of parole or speedier releaser release. See Nettles, 830 25 F.3d at 934-35. But a challenge to a disciplinary finding that resulted in assessment of time credits 26 must be brought in habeas if reinstatement of the time credits would “necessarily spell speedier 27 release.” See Skinner, 561 U.S. at 525. 1 indicate the punishment from the disciplinary finding such as to clarify whether or not he has lost 2 || time credits or other privileges. If reversal of the disciplinary finding will not lead to a speedier 3 release, then Petitioner must bring this claim in a civil rights action. If, on the other hand, 4 || Petitioner has lost time credits, then he may bring this action in a habeas case. 5 Petitioner is also informed that prisoners in state custody who wish to collaterally 6 || challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas proceedings are first 7 required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral 8 || proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the 9 merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See

(b), (c); 10 || Rose v. Lundy,

(1982). Petitioner indicates that the superior court ruled on 11 his habeas petition, but it does not appear that he presented his claim to the California Supreme 12 Court. In an amended petition, he must address this issue. 13 CONCLUSION 14 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 4) is GRANTED. The petition is 3 15 DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth above. The amended a 16 petition must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is served and must 3 17 include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED 18 || PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend within the designated time may result in the 19 || dismissal of the petition. 20 2. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply 21 with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 22 action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 14, 2023 26

ROBERT M. ILLMAN 28 United States Magistrate Judge