Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01578/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01578-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

19cv1578-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MARCUS POLLARD,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 19cv1578-CAB-MDD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS, 

A LAW LIBRARY, WRITING 

MATERIALS, AND LEGAL CALLS

[ECF No. 11]

Petitioner Christopher Warsaw (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 16, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for a court order 

instructing officers and employees of Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility to grant him access to legal materials, a law library, writing 

materials, and legal calls. (ECF No. 11 at 1).1 Since the filing of this motion, 

Petitioner filed an amended petition and a motion to proceed in forma 

 

1 All pincite page references refer to the automatically generated ECF page 

numbers, not the page number in the original document.

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 16 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv1578-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

pauperis.2 (ECF Nos. 13, 14).

First, this Court lacks jurisdiction by way of habeas corpus proceedings 

to grant the relief Petitioner requests. A federal court is a court of limited 

jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, the Court must have a “case” or 

“controversy” before it. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968). Absent a 

case or controversy, this court cannot hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 

469 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). 

Here, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his state court 

conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, the “case” or “controversy” 

over which this Court has habeas jurisdiction is limited to the challenges set 

forth in the § 2254 petition. 

Second, Petitioner’s challenge is more properly addressed in a 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A habeas corpus petition is the 

method for a prisoner to challenge the “‘legality or duration’” of his 

confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser 

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). On the other hand, a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to 

challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 

136, 141-42 (1991). 

Because Petitioner’s request concerns the conditions of his confinement 

and this action is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court must deny

Petitioner’s request. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. See

Donley v. Beard, No. 1:15-cv-01816-DAD-JLT (HC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

 

2 This suggests Petitioner has access to at least some of the materials he requests and that 

he has not been prejudiced by any lack of access.

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 16 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv1578-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

41690 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017) (denying motion for access to law library); 

Gonzales v. Cash, 1:11-cv-01644 BAM (HC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8517 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (same). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 16 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3