1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISMAEL VALDEZ, BW7093, Case No. 24-cv-01174-CRB (PR)

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

12 I. 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in 14 Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

15 alleging that, while he was detained at the Monterey County Jail, he was subjected to “aggression 16 and threats” by various deputy sheriffs. ECF No. 1 (Pet.) at 2. Petitioner requests that the deputy 17 sheriffs’ misconduct “be looked into,”

, and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 18 under

. 19 Based solely on petitioner’s affidavit of poverty, his application for leave to proceed IFP 20 (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. 21 II. 22 Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on claims related to imprisonment: a petition 23 for a writ of habeas corpus under

, and a complaint for violation of federal civil 24 rights under

. Hill v. McDonough,

(2006). Habeas is the 25 “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier release from confinement.” 26 Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 27 Where the prisoner’s claim “would not necessarily spell speedier release, however, suit may be ] is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 2 || corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser v. 3 || Rodriguez,

(1973)). 4 Here, petitioner requests that the deputy sheriffs’ alleged aggression and threats against 5 || him while he was detained at the Monterey County Jail be investigated. But success on 6 || petitioner’s suit would not necessarily lead to petitioner’s immediate or earlier release from 7 || confinement on a recent conviction (based on a plea of nolo contendere) that has nothing to do 8 || with the alleged misconduct of the deputy sheriffs at the Monterey County Jail. See Skinner, 562 9 || U.S. at 534. Put simply, petitioner’s suit for an investigation into the deputy sheriffs’ alleged 10 || aggression and threats against him while he was at the Monterey County Jail does not fall within 11 the “core of habeas corpus” and consequently “must be brought, if at all, under $1983.” Nettles, 12

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

3 15 alleging misconduct by deputy sheriffs at the Monterey County Jail is DISMISSED without 16 || prejudice to bringing in a prisoner complaint under

. 5 17 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of 5 18 appealability (COA) under

(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “jurists 19 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 0 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (emphasis added). 9 The clerk is directed to close the case, terminate all pending motions as moot and send

33 petitioner a blank prisoner § 1983 complaint form.

34 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 8, 2024 25 26 CHARLES R. BREYER 17 United States District Judge 28