1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 PHILIP HUGHES, Case No. 3:22-cv-00378-MMD-CSD

7 Petitioner, ORDER

8 v.

9 PERRY RUSSELL, 10 Respondent. 11 12 This is a habeas corpus action brought under

by Philip Hughes, 13 who is incarcerated in the custody of the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). 14 Hughes filed his habeas petition on August 24, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) He paid the filing fee. 15 (ECF No. 3.) The Court has examined Hughes’s petition and will dismiss it because it 16 does not state a claim cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action. 17 Hughes’s petition alleges that, at NNCC, $8 was improperly confiscated from him. 18 (ECF No. 1 at 2–8.) He seeks an order of this Court requiring NNCC to refund the $8. (Id. 19 at 8.) 20 A state prisoner's habeas claim is cognizable only if it falls within the “core” of 21 habeas. Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Federal law 22 provides two main avenues to relief on complaints related to incarceration: a petition for 23 a writ of habeas corpus or a civil rights action under

. See Muhammad 24 v. Close,

(2004). If success on a claim would not necessarily lead to a 25 petitioner's immediate or earlier release from custody, the claim does not fall within “the 26 core of habeas corpus” and must be brought, “if at all,” in a civil rights action under § 27 1 || necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from custody, but would lead only to 2 || arefund of the money that was allegedly improperly confiscated from him; therefore, this 3 || case is not cognizable in this federal habeas corpus action. The Court will dismiss this 4 || action on this ground. 5 The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send Hughes the forms necessary to file 6 || a civil rights action under

, in case he wishes to pursue this matter 7 || further. 8 The Court need not determine whether a certificate of appealability is warranted. 9 ||

(c)(1) does not require a certificate of appealability for an appeal from 10 || an order dismissing a habeas petition under

. See Forde v. U.S. Parole 11 || Comm’n,

(9th Cir. 1997). Hughes may appeal by filing a timely notice 12 || of appeal in this action, in this Court. 13 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed. 14 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 15 || and close this case. 16 It is further ordered that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Perry Russell 17 || is substituted for Kyle Olsen as the respondent warden. The Clerk of Court is directed to 18 || update the docket to reflect this change. 19 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a copy of 20 || the forms for a prisoner to file a civil rights action under

. 21 DATED THIS 2" Day of September 2022.

23 MIRANDA M. DU 24 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28