Case ID: f-appx_375/html/0802-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher Isaac SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-15143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 15, 2010.
    Christopher Isaac Simmons, pro se.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Christopher Isaac Simmons appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.

Simmons contends the district court erred by dismissing his habeas petition rather than construing it as a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Galligher v. McCarthy, 470 F.2d 740, 741 (9th Cir.1972). Accordingly, Simmons’ habeas petition is to be treated as a § 1983 complaint. See id. We remand for further proceedings consistent -with this disposition. See id.

We express no opinion on the merits of Simmons’ § 1983 action.

REVERSED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.