Tauno August Koivisto v. Warden ( 2020 )

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAUNO AUGUSTKOIVISTO, Case No.2:20-03387CAS(ADS) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING 13 WARDEN, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 14 Respondent. 15 16 Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by 17 PetitionerTauno AugustKoivisto,an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles 18 County. [Dkt. No. 1]. To the extent that the Court can understandthe Petition, 19 Petitionerappearsto allege a lack of access to specific food for his medical needs in 20 prison. [Id.]. Therefore, Petitioneris 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. SeePreiser 24 v.Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487–88 (1973); seealsoDouglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 1 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A habeas court has the power to release a prisoner, but has no 2 || 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 g || 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. 16 . 17 || Dated: April 14, 2020 hhMo Pe A. tine oA. THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA 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