The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 OLIVEIRA DOS SANTOS, Case No. 21-cv-04224-JD
8 Petitioner,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,
Respondent.
11
12
13 Petitioner, a patient at Napa State Hospital, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
14 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in San Mateo County, which is in
15 this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.
21 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
22 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (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 supporting
25 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’
26 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility
27 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
LEGAL CLAIMS
1
Petitioner seeks relief regarding the conditions of his confinement and his underlying
2
conviction. “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to
3
imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil
4
Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the
5
lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas
6
corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.
7
749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may
8
be brought under § 1983.” Id.
9
Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier
10
release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson
11
v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “Where
12
the prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought
13
under § 1983.’” Skinner, 562 U.S. at 533-34 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). In fact, a §
14
1983 action is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of
15
habeas corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting
16
Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487). A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted
17
unless it is within the core of habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from
18
confinement or shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014)
19
(citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500).
20
Petitioner has not exhausted the habeas claims in state court. He has presented claims only
21
to the Ninth Circuit and the State Bar of California. Prisoners in state custody who wish to
22
challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings the fact or length of their confinement are
23
required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral
24
proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the
25
merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c);
26
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The habeas action is dismissed without prejudice.
27
1 Petitioner may file a federal petition in this Court once the California Supreme Court has ruled on
2 || his claims.
3 Petitioner’s claims about the conditions of his confinement are dismissed without
4 || prejudice, and plaintiff may file a separate civil rights action. If plaintiff files a civil rights action,
5 he must identify specific defendants and describe how they violated his constitutional rights.
6 Simply stating that he was unable to file a grievance, without more information, is insufficient.
7 CONCLUSION
8 1. Petitioner is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, but this action is DISMISSED
9 without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
10 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case.
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 Dated: July 8, 2021
14
JAMES ATO
IS United Sites District Judge
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28