McDonald
McDonald v. Bates
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Dennis W. McDonald appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997), and we reverse and remand.
McDonald filed his § 2241 petition, seeking release from prison in order to obtain medical treatment for his Hepatitis C. The district court sua sponte dismissed McDonald’s § 2241 petition, finding that because McDonald was not challenging the “legality or duration” of his confinement, his use of § 2241 was improper. The district court further found that because McDonald was challenging the “conditions of [his] confinement,” he could seek relief through a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action.
When a pro se habeas corpus petition may be fairly read to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act, it should be so construed. See Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 729-30 (9th Cir.1974); Galligher v. McCarthy, 470 F.2d 740, 741 (9th Cir.1972). Furthermore, courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We…