Koivisto v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO, Case No.: 19cv1944 GPC (MSB)

12 Petitioner, ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING 14 WARDEN, et al., CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Respondents. 15 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. 20 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 21 Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional institution in which 22 he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court 23 GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to 24 prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and 25 without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for 26 Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 2 Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of 3 Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims 4 Petitioner presents. Although not entirely clear, Petitioner appears to be complaining 5 about the dental care he is receiving in prison. He references “severe dental bad 6 insurance care,” and states that “On 06-14-2019, Dental C.M.O. and current associate 7 warden Dr. Parra and Dr. Ryeses/Reyes did so: harm, assault, disfigure and also: poorly 8 dental exam in person . . . .” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2, 4.) Petitioner’s claims are not 9 cognizable on habeas because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration 10 of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); 11 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). 12 Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ 13 of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement 14 are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 15 488-500. When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 16 imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 17 release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 18 habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a 19 state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, 20 but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole 21 Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 22 It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the 23 fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim 24 pursuant to § 2254. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for 25 summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the 26 petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 27 district court.” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that 28 1 || Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that 2 || the state court violated his federal rights. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in 5 || forma pauperis and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to 6 || challenge the conditions of his confinement, he must file a civil rights complaint pursuant 7 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the proper jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 17, 2019 = 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28