Carlos (Alfredo) Cardenas-Gonzales v. Highland Hospital

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CARLOS (ALFREDO) CARDENAS- Case No. 26-cv-00867-EKL GONZALES, 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING MATTER v. 10 Re: ECF Nos. 1, 4 HIGHLAND HOSPITAL, 11 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner Carlos (Alfredo) Cardenas-Gonzales, a pro se state detainee, filed the instant 14 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging medical care he received at Highland Hospital in 15 Alameda County, as well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 4. 16 Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim. Prisoners may generally 17 pursue federal relief related to their imprisonment through two major avenues: (1) a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus, or (2) a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Muhammad v. 19 Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). Habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for 20 challenges to the validity of the fact or length of confinement or matters affecting the duration of 21 confinement. Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Requests for relief turning on 22 circumstances of confinement may not be presented in a federal habeas corpus petition, but they 23 may be presented in a § 1983 action. Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 750; see Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 24 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action is proper, 25 where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 26 sentence.”). 27 While the Court may, where appropriate, convert a habeas corpus petition into a federal ] only that unnamed individuals at Highland Hospital committed “medical malpractice” and 2 || “professional negligence” — both state law claims — rather than alleging any federal or 3 constitutional claims. ECF No. 1 at 2; see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (noting that 4 || aplaintiff seeking relief under § 1983 “must allege the violation of a right secured by the 5 || Constitution [or federal law].”); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting 6 || that “a habeas corpus action and a prisoner civil rights suit differ in a variety of respects — such as 7 || the proper defendant, filing fees, the means of collecting them, and restrictions on future filings — 8 || that may make recharacterization impossible or, if possible, disadvantageous to the prisoner 9 || compared to a dismissal without prejudice of his petition for habeas corpus.”’). 10 This matter is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner raising his 11 claims of medical malpractice and professional negligence through the proper vehicle in the 12 || appropriate forum, i.e., in state court. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the 13 file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: June 23, 2026

Eumi K. Lee 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28