Bruce Rouse v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Bruce A. Rouse appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to overcrowded prisons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Dismissal of Rouse’s requests for injunc-tive and equitable relief was proper because Rouse’s exclusive federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”).

Dismissal of Rouse’s claim against Superior Court Judge Arthur Bocanegra was proper because he is immune from liability. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075…