Hamilton v. Dr. Lee ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALBERT HAMILTON, AU2583, Case No. 21-cv-03552-CRB (PR) 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 9 v. A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 DR. LEE, et al., 11 Respondent(s). 12 I. 13 Petitioner Albert Hamilton, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano 14 (SOL), has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging 15 the decision of prison officials at California State Prison, Los Angeles County (LAC) to transfer 16 him to SOL and the care he is receiving at SOL for his Raynaud’s syndrome, a condition in which 17 some areas of the body feel numb and cool in response to cold temperatures and/or stress. 18 Plaintiff seeks a court order transferring him to a state prison “south to stay warm,” and 19 compelling prison officials at SOL to provide him various accommodations and care for his Raynaud’s syndrome and other medical conditions. 20 II. 21 Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on claims related to imprisonment: a petition 22 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint for violation of federal civil 23 rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006). Habeas is the 24 “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier release from confinement.” 25 Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 26 Where the prisoner’s claim “would not necessarily spell speedier release, however, suit may be 27 ] is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas 2 || corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser v. 3 || Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973)). 4 Here, petitioner seeks relief from his transfer to SOL and the care he is receiving at SOL 5 for his Raynaud’s syndrome and other medical conditions. But success on petitioner’s challenge — 6 || an order transferring him to a state prison in a warmer part of the state and/or providing him 7 || various accommodations and care for his Raynaud’s syndrome and other medical conditions at 8 SOL — would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement. See 9 || Skinner, 562 U.S. at 534. Put simply, petitioner’s challenge to the conditions of his confinement 10 || at SOL does not fall within the “core of habeas corpus” and consequently “must be brought, if at 11 all, under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 12 HI. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 14 || challenging the conditions of petitioner’s confinement at SOL is DISMISSED without prejudice to 3 15 || bringing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or possibly under Title II of the 16 || Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seg. (ADA)) in the United States i 17 || District Court for the Eastern District of California, in whose venue SOL lies and the pertinent Zz 18 || prison officials presumably reside. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). 19 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: June 22, 2021 22 Lo 5 CHARLES R. BREYER 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28