Tauno A. Koivisto v. The Great People of the State of California

C.D. California

Tauno A. Koivisto v. The Great People of the State of California

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 24, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-03700·Unknown

Opinion

JS-6

Case No. 2:20-03700 CAS (ADS) Petitioner,

v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING THE GREAT PEOPLE OF THE STATE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Respondents.

Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Tauno August Koivisto, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles County. [Dkt. No. 1]. To the extent that the Court can understand the Petition, Petitioner again appears to allege a lack of medical care in prison. [Id.]. Therefore, Petitioner is not challenging his incarceration or his sentence, but is instead complaining about the conditions of his confinement. A habeas corpus petition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the conditions of confinement. The purpose of habeas corpus is to attack the legality of a conviction or sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 475, 487-88 (1973); see also Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010) (‘A habeas court has the power to release a prisoner, but has no other power.”) (citation omitted). Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”). Because the Petition is largely indecipherable, this is not a matter appropriate for conversion to a civil rights case. For these reasons, the Petition is dismissed. The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). ee f || Dated: April 24, 2020 He - & | □□ THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER United States District Judge Presented by: ___/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth _ THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JS-6

Case No. 2:20-03700 CAS (ADS) Petitioner,

v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING THE GREAT PEOPLE OF THE STATE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Respondents.

Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Tauno August Koivisto, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles County. [Dkt. No. 1]. To the extent that the Court can understand the Petition, Petitioner again appears to allege a lack of medical care in prison. [Id.]. Therefore, Petitioner is not challenging his incarceration or his sentence, but is instead complaining about the conditions of his confinement. A habeas corpus petition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the conditions of confinement. The purpose of habeas corpus is to attack the legality of a conviction or sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 475, 487-88 (1973); see also Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010) (‘A habeas court has the power to release a prisoner, but has no other power.”) (citation omitted). Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”). Because the Petition is largely indecipherable, this is not a matter appropriate for conversion to a civil rights case. For these reasons, the Petition is dismissed. The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). ee f || Dated: April 24, 2020 He - & | □□ THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER United States District Judge Presented by: ___/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth _ THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge

Tauno A. Koivisto v. The Great People of the State of California, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Tauno A. Koivisto v. The Great People of the State of California (Tauno A. Koivisto v. The Great People of the State of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related