Carlos Alfredo Cardenas-Gonzalez v. Union City Police Department, Alameda County

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CARLOS ALFREDO CARDENAS- Case No. 26-cv-00331-EKL GONZALEZ, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING MATTER v. 10 Re: ECF Nos. 1, 3, 4 UNION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. 12 13 Petitioner Carlos (Alfredo) Cardenas-Gonzales, a pro se state detainee, filed the instant 14 petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging excessive force by unidentified police officers, as well 15 as duplicate applications to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 3, 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 ] not identify proper defendants or provide any grounds for municipal liability against Respondent, 2 || the Union City Police Department, and will therefore need to file an amended filing before he can 3 seek relief. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (local government 4 || entities cannot be liable under § 1983 under respondeat superior theory); see also Nettles v. 5 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that “‘a habeas corpus action and a prisoner 6 || civil rights suit differ in a variety of respects — such as the proper defendant, filing fees, the means 7 || of collecting them, and restrictions on future filings — that may make recharacterization impossible 8 or, if possible, disadvantageous to the prisoner compared to a dismissal without prejudice of his 9 || petition for habeas corpus.”). 10 Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner raising his 11 claims in a new federal civil rights complaint. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, 12 || provide Petitioner with a blank prisoner civil rights complaint form, and close the file. 14 || Dated: June 24, 2026

16 Gio KO Eumi K. Lee 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28