United States District Court, D. Idaho
TAUNO A. KOIVISTO, III, Petitioner,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE, LTD., Respondent.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Tauno A. Koivisto, III has filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 3.)
The Court now reviews the Petition to determine whether it is
subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Standard of Law
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available
to petitioners who show that they are held in custody under a
state court judgment and that such custody violates the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court is required
to review a habeas corpus petition upon receipt to determine
whether it is subject to summary dismissal. Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary dismissal is
appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court.”
was convicted of “estate fraud” or “banking
robbery” in California state court and is currently
incarcerated in a prison near Los Angeles. (Pet., Dkt. 3, at
1.) To the extent the Petition challenges Petitioner's
California conviction, it is subject to dismissal because
this Court lacks jurisdiction.
of habeas corpus may be granted by … the district
courts … within their respective
jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (emphasis
added)). This language means that a “habeas petition
can be brought in the court with jurisdiction over the
prisoner or his custodian.” Fest v. Bartee,
804 F.2d 559, 560 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Braden v. 30th
Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495-99
(1973)). In this case, the court having jurisdiction over
Petitioner and his custodian appears to be the United States
District Court for the Central District of California-not
Petition is also subject to dismissal because it does not
contain any constitutional claims that challenge the validity
of Petitioner's conviction or sentence. Instead, the
Petition appears to assert claims of illegal conditions of
confinement- specifically, inadequate medical or dental care.
(Dkt. 3 at 2-3.) The remedy for any such violation would not
be an immediate or speedier release from confinement, see
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), but
instead an award of monetary damages and/or an order
requiring the cessation of illegal activities. Because such
claims “do not lie at the core of habeas corpus,
” they “may not be brought in habeas corpus but
must be brought, if at all, ” pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the civil rights statute. Nettles v.
Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
to the extent the Court could construe the Petition as
asserting civil rights claims, it is subject to dismissal for
lack of state action. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected
by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately
caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state
law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420
(9th Cir. 1991). This requirement of state action means that
§ 1983 does not provide a remedy for purely private
conduct, “no matter how unfair that conduct may
be.” NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191
private party can be subject to suit under § 1983 for
violating a plaintiff's civil rights only in narrow
circumstances. In the case of a private party, “state
action may be found if, though only if, there is such a close
nexus between the State and the challenged action that
seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of
the State itself.” Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn.
Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 295
(2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Supreme Court has identified several contexts in which a
private party can be considered a state actor for purposes of
a civil rights action. Id. at 296. These include the
following situations: (1) the private party's action
results from the state's “exercise of coercive
power” or “significant encouragement”; (2)
the private party participates in “joint
activity” with the state; (3) the private party is
“controlled by an agency of the State”; (4) the
private party “has been delegated a public function by
the State”; and (5) the private party is
“entwined with governmental policies, ” or
“the government is entwined in [the private
party's] management or control.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). None of these contexts is
implicated in the Petition, which is asserted against a
private insurance company.
if construed as a civil rights complaint, the Petition would
also be subject to dismissal for improper venue. A civil
action may be filed only in
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which ...