1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO, Case No. 2:20-03812 CAS (ADS) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS

PETITION AND DENYING

13 LOS ANGELES DISTRICT COURT CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SYSTEM, et al. 14 Respondents. 15 16 Before the Court for screening is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by 17 Petitioner Tauno August Koivisto, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles 18 County. [Dkt. No. 1]. To the extent that the Court can understand the Petition, 19 Petitioner again appears to allege a lack of medical care in prison. [Id.]. Therefore, 20 Petitioner is not challenging his incarceration or his sentence, but is instead 21 complaining about the conditions of his confinement. A habeas corpus petition is not 22 the proper vehicle for challenging the conditions of confinement. The purpose of habeas 23 corpus is to attack the legality of a conviction or sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 24 1 || U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973); see also Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010) 2 || (“A habeas court has the power to release a prisoner, but has no other power.”) (citation 3 || omitted). 4 Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement 5 must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Ramirez v. 6 || Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 7 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not 8 || necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”). Because the Petition is largely 9 || indecipherable, this is not a matter appropriate for conversion to a civil rights case. For 10 || these reasons, the Petition is 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. " hiuotun th bright 18 ||Dated: APril 30, 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