United States District Court, N.D. California
March 15, 2004.
CRAIG CLIFFORD BUSCH, Plaintiff,
L.W. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARTIN JENKINS, District Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Craig C. Busch ("plaintiff'), a California prisoner, has
filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that he was disciplined by prison officials for
violating prison rules in a manner which violates his constitutional
rights. His complaint and the attachments thereto reveal that part of his
punishment for the rule violation was the loss of ninety days of good time
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review,
the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that
are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be
liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't 901 F.2d 696,
699 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff challenges the validity of prison officials' decision that he
was guilty of violating a prison rule, and he seeks a restoration of his
lost good time credits.*fn1 Any claim by a prisoner attacking the
validity or duration of his confinement must be brought under
the habeas sections of Title 28 of the United States Code. See Calderon
v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998). A prisoner must bring a habeas
petition if the nature of his claim is such that it may result in
entitlement to an earlier release, as in a claim for the violation of his
rights in connection with the loss of good time credits. See Young v.
Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990). A civil rights complaint
seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to the
prisoner's bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See
Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, plaintiff's claims challenging the discipline he received
for violating prison rules are dismissed without prejudice to his raising
them in a habeas petition.
For the reasons expressed, plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without
prejudice to refiling in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus after he
has exhausted his claims in the state courts.
The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by
jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the
Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
Pursuant to the order filed on March 15, 2004, this case is Dismissed.