Van Huisen v. Covello

── Van Huisen v. Covello ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 25-1024 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-02905-TLN-AC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* PATRICK COVELLO; MACOMBER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Gregory Scott Van Huisen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing Van Huisen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his continued incarceration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). state a claim. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Van Huisen’s action because Van Huisen sought to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement and thus was required to seek relief through a habeas corpus proceeding. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (explaining that a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement but must instead seek habeas corpus relief). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-1024