1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No. CV 20-04906-FMO (PD) 12 MARTIN LEE GOUGHER, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 LOUIS MILUSNIC, ACTING WARDEN, et al., 16 Respondents. 17

18 Before the Court is the Emergency Petition filed by Petitioner Martin Lee 19 Gougher on June 2, 2020. Petitioner is an inmate at the Federal Correctional 20 Institution (“FCI”) in Lompoc, California. Petitioner was convicted in the 21 United States District Court for the Southern District of California of 22 distribution, receipt and possession of child pornography and sentenced in 23 December 2017 to 200 months in custody. United States v. Martin Lee 24 Gougher, CR 14-0635-WQH. Petitioner’s appeal of this conviction is pending 25 in the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral argument in May 2020. United States 26 v. Martin Lee Gougher, No. 18-50352. Petitioner is represented by counsel on 27 appeal. 28 1 In his Petition, Petitioner alleges that he currently has three cases 2 pending in federal court, plans to file another federal case, and has a case 3 pending in state court. Petitioner alleges that he will miss filing deadlines 4 because he has been denied access to the law library. Petitioner attached to 5 his Petition a Memorandum dated April 17, 2020, regarding enhanced Covid- 6 19 Mitigation Measures at FCI Lompoc that include a provision for seeking 7 access to the law library for imminent legal needs. Petitioner alleges that he 8 properly submitted a request and was denied access to the law library. 9 Petitioner asks the Court to vacate his conviction. 10 The Petition is hereby dismissed for the following reasons: 11 1. To the extent the Petition asks the Court to vacate Petitioner’s 12 criminal conviction, it is dismissed as premature because Petitioner’s 13 direct appeal is currently pending. 14 2. To the extent the Petition raises claims regarding access to the law 15 library, Petitioner should properly file a civil rights action.1 16 3. To the extent that Petitioner seeks an extension of deadlines or seeks 17 to submit additional pleadings in his direct appeal, Petitioner is 18 represented by counsel who can make those submissions. 19 4. To the extent that Petitioner needs additional time to meet deadlines 20 in other cases, he can file requests to extend his deadlines based on 21 the information he included in his Petition and the Memorandum that 22 he attached to his Petition. Petitioner signed his Petition on May 25, 23 2020, and it was filed on June 2, 2020. Petitioner has demonstrated 24

25 1 A habeas corpus petition is not the proper vehicle for challenging conditions of confinement. The purpose of habeas corpus is to attack the 26 legality of a conviction or the length of a sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). Prisoners wishing to challenge the 27 conditions of their confinement--like library access at the prison--are required to file a civil rights action.

. 28 (continued…) 1 that he has access to the court, and thus can submit extension 2 requests as needed. 3 Accordingly, the Petition is Dismissed, and the Ex Parte Application for the 4 | United States Marshal to Serve Respondents is Denied.? 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g Dated: June 8, 2020. 9 10 /s/ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 Presented by: 21 42, ty

PATRICIA DONAHUE 23 | United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 > The dismissal is without prejudice for Petitioner to file a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

(1971). 28 | challenging the denial of law library access.