Mr. Tauno August Koivisto, III v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 15, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-08990
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

JS-6 5

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO, III, Case No. 2:19-08990 CAS (ADS) 11 Petitioner,

12 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING 13 WARDEN, et al., CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

14 Respondent.

16 Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by 17 Petitioner Tauno August Koivisto, III, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles 18 County. [Dkt. No. 1]. To the extent that the Court can understand the Petition, 19 Petitioner alleges a violation of his rights to religious freedom while in prison. [Id.]. It 20 appears, therefore, that Petitioner is not challenging his incarceration or his sentence, 21 but is instead complaining about the conditions of his confinement. A habeas corpus 22 petition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the conditions of confinement. The 23 purpose of habeas corpus is to attack the legality of a conviction or sentence. See Preiser 24 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487–88 (1973); cf. Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 504 1 |] (9th Cir. 2010) (“A habeas court has the power to release a prisoner, but has no other 2 || power.”) (citation omitted). 3 Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a 4 || civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 5 || 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, 6 || where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the 7 || prisoner’s sentence.”). For this reason, the Petition is dismissed. 8 The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 9 || denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling and, 10 || therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 11 || 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack 12 ||v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: November 15, 2019 Ahbuatue Uh. HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 16 United States District Judge 17 || Presented by: 18 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 19 || United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24