Opinion
Case No.: 19cv1578-CAB-MDD
11-04-2019
CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS POLLARD, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS, A LAW LIBRARY, WRITING MATERIALS, AND LEGAL CALLS
[ECF No. 11]
Petitioner Christopher Warsaw ("Petitioner") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On October 16, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for a court order instructing officers and employees of Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility to grant him access to legal materials, a law library, writing materials, and legal calls. (ECF No. 11 at 1). Since the filing of this motion, Petitioner filed an amended petition and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 13, 14).
All pincite page references refer to the automatically generated ECF page numbers, not the page number in the original document.
This suggests Petitioner has access to at least some of the materials he requests and that he has not been prejudiced by any lack of access. --------
First, this Court lacks jurisdiction by way of habeas corpus proceedings to grant the relief Petitioner requests. A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, the Court must have a "case" or "controversy" before it. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968). Absent a case or controversy, this court cannot hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972).
Here, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his state court conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, the "case" or "controversy" over which this Court has habeas jurisdiction is limited to the challenges set forth in the § 2254 petition.
Second, Petitioner's challenge is more properly addressed in a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A habeas corpus petition is the method for a prisoner to challenge the "'legality or duration'" of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). On the other hand, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991).
Because Petitioner's request concerns the conditions of his confinement and this action is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court must deny Petitioner's request.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion. See Donley v. Beard, No. 1:15-cv-01816-DAD-JLT (HC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41690 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017) (denying motion for access to law library); Gonzales v. Cash, 1:11-cv-01644 BAM (HC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8517 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (same).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
United States Magistrate Judge