review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999). 2 . See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859, 2003 WL 21478630, at *7 (9th Cir. June 27, 2003). We note that our recent holding in Ramirez eliminates Owens’ primary concern with bringing his claim under § 1983: the application of the favorable termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). In Ramirez, we held "that the favorable termination rule does not apply to § 1983 suits challenging a disciplinary hearing or administrative sanction that does not affect the overall length of the prisoner’s confinement." 2003 WL 21478630, at *6 (emphasis added). 3 . Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1340, 1348 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 305 (9th
holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc  1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition holding that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a  1983 complaint that should have been brought as a habeas petition holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding 1 that the district court properly construed one  1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another  1983 claim as a habeas petition