The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CARL A. TAYLOR, JR., Case No. 21-08399 BLF (PR)
11
Petitioner,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
12
v.
13
14
L. MARTINEZ, Warden,
15
Respondent.
16
17
18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Id. For the
20 reasons discussed below, the instant petition will be dismissed.
21
22 DISCUSSION
23 Petitioner claims his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment
24 is being violated because he is being forced to endure “constant endangerment of life and
25 well being with irreparable harm physically and mentally, via overcrowded prison
26
27
1 The matter was reassigned to this Court on November 3, 2021, by order of Magistrate
1 conditions” midst the Covid-19 pandemic. Dkt. No. 1 at 7. Plaintiff claims that this
2 situation qualifies as an “extraordinary and compelling” circumstance, warranting
3 immediate release because the prison cannot possibly guarantee his reasonable safety from
4 COVID. Id. at 15.
5 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or
6 speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011)
7 (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S.
8 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
9 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “Where the prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier
10 release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” Skinner, 562 U.S. at 533-34
11 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). In fact, a § 1983 action is the exclusive remedy for
12 claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas corpus.’” Nettles v.
13 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487).
14 A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted unless it is within the
15 core of habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from confinement or
16 shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
17 Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500). Here, Petitioner has artfully attempted to cast this claim as a
18 habeas claim by requesting release from custody as the relief, but this claim is more
19 properly brought as a civil rights case. Success on his Eighth Amendment claim would not
20 necessarily require release from custody or a shortening of his sentence; the Court could
21 order different relief, e.g., transfer to a different facility, booster shots, or other COVID
22 mitigation measures. Accordingly, Petitioner’s sole remedy for this claim attacking
23 conditions of confinement is by filing a § 1983 action since his claim does not lie at the
24 core of habeas corpus. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931.
25 Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the
26 conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see
1 || difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms
2 || used by most prisoners request different information and much of the information
3 || necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed here.
4 || Examples of the potential problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than
5 || the civil rights complaint form include the potential omission of intended defendants,
6 || potential failure to link each defendant to the claims, and potential absence of an adequate
7 || prayer for relief.
8 Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00 civil
9 || action filing fee to pursue his claims. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow
10 || prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every such case,
11 including this one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to
12 || deal with the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence of information
13 || on the habeas form.
5 14
CONCLUSION
A 16 For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED
3 17. || without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
18 preferably using the court’s civil rights complaint form. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
19 The Clerk is instructed to include two copies of the prisoner civil rights complaint
20 || form to Petitioner with a copy of this order, along with an In Forma Pauperis Application.
21 IT ISSO ORDERED.
22 || Dated: _ February 28, 2022___ bode Lobuahaconuen/
53 BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
24
Order of Dismissal
25 P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.21\08399Taylor_dism(hce-cr).docx
26
27