Koivisto

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

TAUNO A. KOIVISTO,

7 Case No. 20-cv-02281-RS (PR) Petitioner, 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9

WARDEN,

10 Respondent. 11

12 13 This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a 14 challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner’s incarceration. A review of the 15 record, however, shows that petitioner sets forth claims against state actors regarding the 16 conditions of confinement — specifically, property claims — rather than challenging the 17 lawfulness or duration of his confinement. Therefore, if petitioner prevails here it will not 18 affect the length of his incarceration. This means that his claim is not the proper subject of 19 a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 20 Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action proper mechanism 21 for challenging “legality or duration” of confinement; civil rights action proper method for 22 challenging conditions of…