Koivisto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAUNO A. KOIVISTO,

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

WARDEN,

10 Respondent.

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