Kelly v. Custer

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 JAMES CARL KELLY, Case No. 24-cv-09429-EMC

Petitioner,

8

v. ORDER DISMISSING MATTER

9 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

J. CUSTER, et al.,

10

Respondents.

11

12

13 Petitioner James Carl Kelly filed the instant action on December 26, 2024, as a habeas

14 corpus petition. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, this action is DISMISSED without

15 prejudice.

16 I. DISCUSSION

17 Petitioner is a state prisoner currently confined at Kern Valley State Prison. Petitioner

18 seeks relief for his claims of retaliation, denial of his request to access the law library, and denial

19 of his request for a reasonable accommodation at the prison. ECF No. 1 at 3-4.

20 “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a

21 petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,

22 . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its

23 duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006)

24 (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate's challenge to the

25 circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Hill, 547 U.S. at 579.

26 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier

27 release” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (internal quotations

1 ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” Skinner, 562

2 U.S. at 533-34 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). In fact, a § 1983 action is the exclusive

3 remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles v.

4 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (internal quotation omitted).

5 Although the remedy sought by a prisoner is material, that the prisoner seeks release is not

6 always enough for a claim to sound in habeas; the claim must actually challenge the basis of the

7 underlying detention. See Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023). “[T]he

8 relevant question is whether, based on the allegations in the petition, release is legally required

9 irrespective of the relief requested.” Id.

10 Accordingly, Petitioner may not pursue his claims challenging the conditions of his

11 confinement, including his retaliation and prison law library claims, in a habeas petition and must

12 instead bring them in a civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Pratt v.

13 Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory

14 punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.

15 That retaliatory actions by prison officials are cognizable under § 1983 has also been widely

16 accepted in other circuits.”). The instant petition will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to

17 Petitioner raising them in a civil rights complaint in a new lawsuit. The Court also notes that the

18 proper venue for claims arising from conditions at Kern Valley State Prison is the United States

19 District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

20 II. CONCLUSION

21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without

22 prejudice to Petitioner raising the claims in a civil rights complaint filed in the appropriate federal

23 district. Any pending motions are therefore moot. The Clerk is requested to include a blank civil

24 rights form with this Order, terminate all pending motions, and close the file.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: June 11, 2025

27