sentence.” However, the dis trict court erred in summarily dismissing Owens’ claim. Summary dismissal is appropriate in very limited circumstances, and this is not one of them. Thus, we reverse and remand to allow the district court to reconstrue Owens’ petition as a civil rights claim or to allow Owens the opportunity to amend. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 . ) ("[A] federal court may construe a § 1983 action as a habeas petition, or a habeas petition as a § 1983 action.") (internal citation omitted), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 519 U.S. 918, 117 S.Ct. 285, 136 L.Ed.2d 204 (1996). Cf. Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1347-48 & n. 13 (<HOLDING>). 5 . Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37
holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted holding  1983 suit seeking restoration of sentence credits properly construed as  2254 petition 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 holding that district court properly dismissed claims in  2241 petition that had been decided in previous habeas action holding that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a  1983 complaint that should have been brought as a habeas petition