Rodriguez

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 20-cv-01946-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

9 v.

10 MIGUEL LUIS ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Coalinga State Hospital, has filed the instant pro se action pursuant 14 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is hard to follow, but plaintiff appears to be arguing that his 15 conviction is invalid because he did not commit the crime and that he has been discriminated 16 against while housed at Coalinga State Hospital. This action will be DISMISSED without 17 prejudice for the following reasons. 18 First, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking to challenge a state court conviction, he is 19 advised that “‘[c]hallenges to the validity of [his] confinement. . . [is] the province of habeas 20 corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 21 749, 750 (2004)). Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or 22 speedier…