Tauno August Koivisto v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02529
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO, Case No. 2:20-02529 CAS (ADS) 11 Petitioner,

12 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING 13 WARDEN, et al., CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 14 Respondent. 15 16 Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by 17 Petitioner Tauno August Koivisto, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles 18 County. [Dkt. No. 1]. Although the Petition is largely incoherent and illegible, to the 19 extent that the Court can understand it, Petitioner appears to allege a lack of medical 20 care by prison staff. [Id.]. Therefore, Petitioner is not challenging his incarceration or 21 his sentence, but is instead complaining about the conditions of his confinement. A 22 habeas corpus petition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the conditions of 23 confinement. The purpose of habeas corpus is to attack the legality of a conviction or 24 sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487–88 (1973); see also Douglas v. 1 || Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A habeas court has the power to release a 2 || prisoner, but has no other 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 5 || F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action 6 || proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten 7 || the prisoner’s sentence.”). Because the Petition is largely indecipherable, this is not a 8 || matter appropriate for conversion to a civil rights case. For these reasons, the Petition is 9 || dismissed. 10 The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 11 || denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling and, 12 || therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. 13 || § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); 14 || Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. 6 Abaca A. dyke 17 || Dated: March 23, 2020 _ THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 18 United States District Judge 19 || Presented by: 20 ||___—/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 21 || United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24