From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Valenzuela

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 13, 2016
CASE NO. CV 15-819-AG (PJW) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. CV 15-819-AG (PJW)

09-13-2016

DONALD B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. E. VALENZUELA, WARDEN, 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, a state inmate at the California Men's Colony East. Petitioner alleges that he is being denied necessary treatment after experiencing a heart attack and seeks an order releasing him from administrative segregation and providing him with medical care. (Petition at 1-2.) It appears, therefore, that 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); cf. 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, 858-59 (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."). For this reason, 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: September 13, 2016.

/s/_________

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: /s/_________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9/7/16


Summaries of

Williams v. Valenzuela

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 13, 2016
CASE NO. CV 15-819-AG (PJW) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2016)
Case details for

Williams v. Valenzuela

Case Details

Full title:DONALD B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. E. VALENZUELA, WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 13, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. CV 15-819-AG (PJW) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2016)