Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01328/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01328-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN GRESCHNER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

KEN CLARK, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01328-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On November 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

be DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment. 

These Findings and Recommendation were served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of that order. On November 19,

2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

//

/

Case 1:07-cv-01328-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed November 8, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED; 

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment; and,

4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of

appealability. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make

an adequate showing. The Court finds that jurists of

reason would not find it debatable whether the petition

was properly dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

claim under § 2241, as Petitioner is challenging the

constitutionality of his federal conviction and/or

sentence. (See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th

Cir. 2001)(COA required if petition is a successive

section 2255 petition disguised as a section 2241

petition).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:07-cv-01328-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01328-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3