Christopher Isaac Simmons v. Anthony Hedgpeth

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER ISAAC SIMMONS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-15143
D.C. No. 07-cv-01058-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-15143 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --