From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Koivisto v. Chief Med. Officer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 2, 2020
Case No. 2:20-02979 CAS (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 2:20-02979 CAS (ADS)

04-02-2020

TAUNO A. KOIVISTO, Petitioner, v. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, et al., Respondent.


ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Tauno A. Koivisto, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles County. [Dkt. No. 1]. Although the Petition is largely incoherent and illegible, to the extent that the Court can understand it, Petitioner again appears to allege a lack of medical care while 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2020

/s/_________

THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

United States District Judge Presented by: /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth
THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH
United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Koivisto v. Chief Med. Officer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 2, 2020
Case No. 2:20-02979 CAS (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020)
Case details for

Koivisto v. Chief Med. Officer

Case Details

Full title:TAUNO A. KOIVISTO, Petitioner, v. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 2, 2020

Citations

Case No. 2:20-02979 CAS (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020)