Warshaw v. Covello
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's motion in a habeas corpus action for access to legal materials, a law library, writing materials, and legal calls. The court denied the motion, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief in a § 2254 proceeding and that the request properly belongs in a § 1983 civil rights action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for access to legal materials, a law library, writing materials, and legal calls denied“Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Preiser/McCarthy framework to distinguish between challenges to the fact or duration of confinement (habeas) and challenges to the conditions of confinement (civil rights). Because the petitioner was proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claims regarding the conditions of confinement, which are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The denial is procedurally correct and consistent with established law. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the jurisdictional limits of a habeas corpus proceeding and applies the Preiser/McCarthy distinction to determine that the petitioner's request regarding conditions of confinement is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The reasoning is direct and supported by binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW, Case No.: 19cv1578-CAB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS, A LAW LIBRARY, WRITING 14 MARCUS POLLARD, MATERIALS, AND LEGAL CALLS 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 11] 16 17 18 Petitioner Christopher Warsaw (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner 19 proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 On October 16, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for a court order 21 instructing officers and employees of Richard J. Donovan Correctional 22 Facility to grant him access to legal materials, a law library, writing 23 materials, and legal calls. (ECF No. 11 at 1).1 Since the filing of this motion, 24 Petitioner filed an amended petition and a motion to proceed in forma 25 26 1 All pincite page references refer to the automatically generated ECF page 1 pauperis.2 (ECF Nos. 13, 14). 2 First, this Court lacks jurisdiction by way of habeas corpus proceedings 3 to grant the relief Petitioner requests. A federal court is a court of limited 4 jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, the Court must have a “case” or 5 “controversy” before it. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968). Absent a 6 case or controversy, this court cannot hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 7 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). 8 Here, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his state court 9 conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, the “case” or “controversy” 10 over which this Court has habeas jurisdiction is limited to the challenges set 11 forth in the § 2254 petition. 12 Second, Petitioner’s challenge is more properly addressed in a 13 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A habeas corpus petition is the 14 method for a prisoner to challenge the “‘legality or duration’” of his 15 confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser 16 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). On the other hand, a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to 18 challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 19 136, 141-42 (1991). 20 Because Petitioner’s request concerns the conditions of his confinement 21 and this action is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court must deny 22 Petitioner’s request. 23 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. See 24 Donley v. Beard, No. 1:15-cv-01816-DAD-JLT (HC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25 26 2 This suggests Petitioner has access to at least some of the materials he requests and that 1 ||41690 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017) (denying motion for access to law library); 2 || Gonzales v. Cash, 1:11-cv-01644 BAM (HC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8517 3 ||(E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (same). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2019 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27