Case Name: Christopher Isaac SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-15
Citations: 375 F. App'x 802
Docket Number: No. 08-15143
Parties: Christopher Isaac SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.