Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01563-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS A. GIBBS,

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

J.E. THOMAS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-01563 AWI TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (Document #9)

ORDER REFERRING ACTION BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On January 30, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction, contending that, because Petitioner was convicted by a court-martial, the court’s

jurisdiction is limited to determining whether Petitioner received a “full and fair” consideration of

his claims in the military courts. Respondent contends evidence of this full and fair consideration is

evident from the present record. 

On August 8, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the court deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss because the records are incomplete

and the court is not presently in a position to determine whether the military appellate courts fully

and fairly considered Petitioner’s claims. The Findings and Recommendations were served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days of the date

of service of the order. 

Case 1:07-cv-01563-SKO Document 19 Filed 09/11/08 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

On August 18, 2008, Petitioner filed objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

As the Findings and Recommendations recommend denial of the pending motion to dismiss, it is

unclear what Petitioner seeks in his objections. It is possible that Petitioner is attempting to obtain

information to assist in proving his case. If Petitioner desires the court consider further documents

or records, Petitioner must either provide them or request permission from the Magistrate Judge to

conduct discovery. Petitioner’s objections present no basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 8, 2008 are ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED (Document #9);

3. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01563-SKO Document 19 Filed 09/11/08 Page 2 of 2