Owens

MEMORANDUM **

Herbert Owens appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1 Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we reverse.

The district court correctly concluded that Owens should have brought his claims under § 1983 rather than as a habeas petition. “[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action [is] proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” 2 However, the dis *923 trict court erred in summarily dismissing Owens’ claim. Summary dismissal is appropriate in very limited circumstances, and this is not one of them. 3 Thus, we reverse and remand to allow the district court to reconstrue Owens’ petition as a civil rights claim 4 or to allow Owens the opportunity to amend.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th…