1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISMAEL VALDEZ, FN2300108, Case No. 23-cv-03967-CRB (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 9 v. DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 10 JUSTIN MATTKE, Sergeant, (ECF No. 3) 11 Respondent.

12 I. 13 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at the Monterey County Jail on charges of criminal threats 14 and vandalism having “nothing to do with this petition,” filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 15 corpus under

alleging that in 2018 he was stopped and harassed by Greenfield 16 Police Department Sergeant Justin Mattke on various occasions, including for exercising “on the 17 wrong side of town.” ECF No. 1 (Pet.) at 2, 3. Petitioner seeks to have Mattke “placed on 18 administrative leave,”

, and an injunction preventing Mattke from “harasing me upon my 19 release nor him harasing my family,” ECF No. 6 (Letter) at 3 (sic in original). Petitioner also 20 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under

. 21 Based solely on petitioner’s affidavit of poverty, his application for leave to proceed IFP 22 (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. 23 II. 24 Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on claims related to imprisonment: a petition 25 for a writ of habeas corpus under

, and a complaint for violation of federal civil 26 rights under

. Hill v. McDonough,

(2006). Habeas is the 27 “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier release from confinement.” ] Where the prisoner’s claim “would not necessarily spell speedier release, however, suit may be 2 || brought under § 1983.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, a § 1983 action 3 is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 4 || corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser v. 5 || Rodriguez,

(1973)). 6 Here, petitioner seeks relief from future harassment by Mattke. But success on petitioner’s 7 || suit —an order placing Mattke on administrative leave and/or an injunction preventing Mattke 8 from harassing plaintiff or his family — would not necessarily lead to petitioner’s immediate or 9 || earlier release from confinement on the current charges against him that have nothing to do with 10 || Mattke. See Skinner, 562 U.S. at 534. Put simply, petitioner’s suit for relief from future 11 harassment by Mattke does not fall within the “core of habeas corpus” and consequently “must be 12 || brought, if at all, under §1983.” Nettles,

(citations and internal quotation marks 13 omitted). 14 U1. 8 15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

16 || seeking relief from future harassment by Mattke is DISMISSED without prejudice to bringing in a i 17 || civil rights complaint under

. Zz 18 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of 19 || appealability (COA) under

(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “jurists 20 || of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 21 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 22 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (emphasis added). 23 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: October 31, 2023 26 ao 5 — CHARLES R. BREYER 27 United States District Judge 28