Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01944/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01944-0/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

19cv1944 GPC (MSB)

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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv1944 GPC (MSB)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING 

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional institution in which 

he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court 

GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to 

prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and 

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01944-GPC-MSB Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv1944 GPC (MSB)

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

28

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims 

Petitioner presents. Although not entirely clear, Petitioner appears to be complaining 

about the dental care he is receiving in prison. He references “severe dental bad 

insurance care,” and states that “On 06-14-2019, Dental C.M.O. and current associate 

warden Dr. Parra and Dr. Ryeses/Reyes did so: harm, assault, disfigure and also: poorly 

dental exam in person . . . .” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2, 4.) Petitioner’s claims are not 

cognizable on habeas because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration 

of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). 

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement 

are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 

488-500. When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 

imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 

release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 

habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a 

state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, 

but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole 

Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997).

It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the 

fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim 

pursuant to § 2254. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for 

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the 

petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 

district court.” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that 

Case 3:19-cv-01944-GPC-MSB Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv1944 GPC (MSB)

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

28

Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that 

the state court violated his federal rights.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in 

forma pauperis and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to 

challenge the conditions of his confinement, he must file a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the proper jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01944-GPC-MSB Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3