Tauno August Koivisto v. Bo Harris

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 7, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-03158·Unknown

Opinion

JS-6

} TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO, Case No. 2:20-03158 CAS (ADS) Petitioner, v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING BO HARRIS, et al., CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Respondent. 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 appears to allege a lack of access to specific food for his medical needs 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 U.S. 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 § 1983 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). dasha A, dryd Dated: _ April 7, 2020 _ 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

Tauno August Koivisto v. Bo Harris, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Tauno August Koivisto v. Bo Harris (Tauno August Koivisto v. Bo Harris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Douglas v. Jacquez
626 F.3d 501 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)