Raymond Curry v. Kate Flack, Timothy Sell, Ronald Abernathy, Rita Griffith, and Dorothy Stiles

29 F.3d 631 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Raymond CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kate FLACK, Timothy Sell, Ronald Abernathy, Rita Griffith, and Dorothy Stiles, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-36921. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 14, 1994. * Decided July 22, 1994. Before: GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON and HALL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Curry argues that the district court erroneously failed to treat his action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Where an action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 challenges the fact or duration of incarceration, habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy. Heck v. Humphrey, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594 , 4595 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-490 (1973)). Because Curry brought his complaint pro se, to the extent it challenges the fact or duration of his incarceration, it should be construed as a habeas petition. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337 , 1347 n. 13 (9th Cir.1981).…