1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DENISE DANA HANSON, Case No. 24-cv-00664-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 A. DULGOV, (Dkt. No. 6) Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this petition for a writ of 14 habeas corpus under

challenging the conditions of her confinement at the 15 Federal Correctional Institute in Dublin, California (“FCI Dublin”). She has paid the filing fee. 16 For the reasons discussed below, the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in 19 2021. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) She claims the conditions at FCI Dublin are harmful because of “toxic 20 substances of black mold, asbestos, natural gas leaks, dirty ventilation, lack of fresh food and 21 periodic brown drinking water,” as well as insufficient ventilation and heat. (Id. at 6, 9.) She also 22 claims she has received inadequate medical care for her “multiple comorbidities. (Id. at 6, 9-10.) 23 Petitioner requests “immediate release” from custody. (Id. at 7.) 24 DISCUSSION 25 Petitioner may not bring her claims in a petition for writ of habeas corpus because she is 26 challenging the conditions of her confinement, not her conviction or sentence. Federal law “opens 27 two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment:” a petition for habeas corpus 1 and a civil rights complaint. Muhammad v. Close,

(2004). Habeas petitions are 2 “the exclusive vehicle” for claims challenging “the fact or duration of the conviction or sentence.” 3 Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016). By contrast, a civil rights action is the 4 “proper remedy” for a claimant asserting “a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison 5 life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

, 499 6 (1973). If success on the petitioner’s claim would not “necessarily lead to immediate or speedier 7 release,” the claim may not be brought in a habeas petition. Nettles,

. 8 In Pinson v. Carvajal,

(9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit addressed the 9 circumstances in which a prisoner can challenge the conditions of confinement in a habeas petition 10 and seek release from custody based upon those conditions.

. The court 11 stated, “[T]he relevant question is whether, based on the allegations in the petition, release is 12 legally required irrespective of the relief requested . . . [o]r stated differently, a successful claim 13 sounding in habeas necessarily results in release, but a claim seeking release does not necessarily 14 sound in habeas.”

(emphasis in original). The court affirmed the dismissal for lack 15 of jurisdiction of a habeas petition under

claiming federal prison officials failed 16 to implement adequate safety protocols in response to COVID-19.

. The court held 17 the petition did not allege facts to support the contention that no set of conditions would cure the 18 constitutional violations, necessitating a remedy of release, and as other remedies short of release 19 could remedy the allegedly unsafe conditions, the claims must be brought in a civil rights case.

20 at 1075. 21 Here, as in Pinson, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims regarding 22 the alleged unsafe conditions and inadequate medical care at FCI Dublin.1 She does not allege 23 facts, when liberally construed, showing that no relief short of release is adequate to cure these 24 alleged constitutional violations. Under Pinson, a habeas petition is not the appropriate remedy 25 for her claims, and she must instead bring them in civil rights action in a new case. See, e.g., 26 1 Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has indicated in a class action brought by FCI Dublin 27 inmates that they plan to close the facility and transfer the inmates. See California Coalition for 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,

(1971) (finding a private 2 || right of action for damages implied from the Constitution for constitutional violations by federal 3 employees or their agents); Carlson v. Green,

(1980) (allowing Bivens claims 4 for prisoner’s inadequate medical care).? Accordingly, this petition will be dismissed without 5 || prejudice to Petitioner bringing her claims in a civil rights complaint in a new case.? 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 8 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 9 This order disposes of docket number 7. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: April 22, 2024 12 □ ie CQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 5 14 United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >This order only addresses the appropriate remedy for Petitioner’s claims and does not reach a conclusion as to which claims, if any, are capable of judicial review and decision. 07 3Petitioner is advised that the filing fee for a civil action is $350 plus a $52 administrative fee (as opposed to the $5 filing fee for a habeas action), and even if she is granted leave to proceed in 2g || forma pauperis (“IFP”), she will still have to pay the $350 filing fee, albeit in monthly installments. See

(b)(1), 1914 (a).