ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BYPASS CLAIM PROCESS

Re: Dkt. No. 40

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff has filed a "motion to bypass claim process." The document is rather confusing as it appears to argue that he should be excused from failing to comply with a claims-presentation requirement but does not connect that argument to this case. The exhibits attached to the one-page motion do not eliminate the confusion. The exhibits include an "application to file late claim" with the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Docket No. 6 at 3. But Contra Costa County is not a defendant in this action, in which the only defendants are the Concord Police Department and two Concord police officers. Another exhibit is an application for public health insurance, which has nothing to do with the present case. Another group of exhibits pertain to the calculation of plaintiff's time credits. Plaintiff's time credit issues do not appear to be relevant to the present action against the police who arrested him. If plaintiff believes that the state court or prison officials have miscalculated his time credits in violation of his constitutional rights, he may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal court. However, before a federal court will entertain such a petition, the petitioner must first exhaust state court remedies for each of his claims by presenting the claims to California's highest court to give that court a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each of the claims. This civil rights action is not the appropriate place to assert claims regarding the calculation of time credits. Finally, if plaintiff wants to complain about conditions of confinement at his prison, he may file a new civil rights action. This action is limited to only those claims discussed in the order of service and partial severance. For these reasons, the "motion to bypass claim process" is DENIED. Docket No. 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.