Tauno August Koivisto, III v. Debbie Asuncion

1 J S - 6 — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO, III, Case No. 2:20-02166 CAS (ADS) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING 13 DEBBIE ASUNCION, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 14 Respondent. — 15 — 16 Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by 17 Petitioner Tauno August Koivisto, III, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles 18 County. [Dkt. No. 1]. Although the Petition is largely incoherent and illegible, to the 19 extent that the Court can understand it, Petitioner appears to allege a lack of medical 20 care by prison medical staff. [Id.]. Therefore, Petitioner is not challenging his 21 incarceration or his sentence, but is instead complaining about the conditions of his 22 confinement. A habeas corpus petition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the 23 conditions of confinement. The purpose of habeas corpus is to attack the legality of a 24 conviction or sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 , 487–88 (1973); see also 1 || Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A habeas court has the power to 2 ||release a prisoner, but has no 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 9 || 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 — 18 || Dated: March 11, 2020 fWuto Pie dl. i ly HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 19 United States District Judge 20 || Presented by: 21 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 22 || United States Magistrate Judge — 23 — — 24 —