# Taylor v. Martinez > District Court, N.D. California · February 28, 2022 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10070570 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** February 28, 2022 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10070570 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10070570. Public record. Not legal advice.