1 JS-6 O 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAUNO A. KOIVISTO, Case No. 2:20-02979 CAS (ADS) 11 Petitioner,

12 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS

PETITION AND DENYING

13 CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, et al., 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 A. Koivisto, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles County. 18 [Dkt. No. 1]. Although the Petition is largely incoherent and illegible, to the extent that 19 the Court can understand it, Petitioner again appears to allege a lack of medical care 20 while in prison. [Id.]. Therefore, Petitioner is not challenging his incarceration or his 21 sentence, but is instead complaining about the conditions of his confinement. A habeas 22 corpus petition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the conditions of confinement. 23 The purpose of habeas corpus is to attack the legality of a conviction or sentence. See 24 1 || Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973); see also Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 2 ||501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A habeas court has the power to release a prisoner, but has no 3 || other power.”) (citation omitted). 4 Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a 5 || civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 6 || F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action 7 || proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten 8 || the prisoner’s sentence.”). Because the Petition is largely indecipherable, this is not a 9 || matter appropriate for conversion to a civil rights case. For these reasons, the Petition is 10 || dismissed. 11 The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 12 || denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling and, 13 || therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. 14 || § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); 15 || Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 16 IT ISSO ORDERED. 17 Abita Hi A ‘ bnyde 18 || Dated: April 2, 2020 _ □

THE 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