Warshaw v. Covello

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW, Case No.: 19cv1578-CAB-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS, A LAW LIBRARY, WRITING 14 MARCUS POLLARD, MATERIALS, AND LEGAL CALLS 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 11] 16 17 18 Petitioner Christopher Warsaw (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner 19 proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 On October 16, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for a court order 21 instructing officers and employees of Richard J. Donovan Correctional 22 Facility to grant him access to legal materials, a law library, writing 23 materials, and legal calls. (ECF No. 11 at 1).1 Since the filing of this motion, 24 Petitioner filed an amended petition and a motion to proceed in forma 25 26 1 All pincite page references refer to the automatically generated ECF page 1 pauperis.2 (ECF Nos. 13, 14). 2 First, this Court lacks jurisdiction by way of habeas corpus proceedings 3 to grant the relief Petitioner requests. A federal court is a court of limited 4 jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, the Court must have a “case” or 5 “controversy” before it. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968). Absent a 6 case or controversy, this court cannot hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 7 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). 8 Here, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his state court 9 conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, the “case” or “controversy” 10 over which this Court has habeas jurisdiction is limited to the challenges set 11 forth in the § 2254 petition. 12 Second, Petitioner’s challenge is more properly addressed in a 13 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A habeas corpus petition is the 14 method for a prisoner to challenge the “‘legality or duration’” of his 15 confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser 16 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). On the other hand, a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to 18 challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 19 136, 141-42 (1991). 20 Because Petitioner’s request concerns the conditions of his confinement 21 and this action is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court must deny 22 Petitioner’s request. 23 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. See 24 Donley v. Beard, No. 1:15-cv-01816-DAD-JLT (HC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25

26 2 This suggests Petitioner has access to at least some of the materials he requests and that 1 ||41690 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017) (denying motion for access to law library); 2 || Gonzales v. Cash, 1:11-cv-01644 BAM (HC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8517 3 ||(E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (same). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2019 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27