Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00246/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00246-0/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

DENARD DARNELL NEAL,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00246 LJO SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 19, 2008. 

Petitioner is currently in custody at the United States Penitentiary, Atwater, California, pursuant

to an out-of-state federal criminal conviction. (See Petition, at 1, citing CR 90-03-01-PHXEHC/CR 90-03-01-PHX-RCB.) 

Although Petitioner cites to 28 U.S.C. § 2007, and claims that the debt owed against the

United States should be discharged via the bond submitted by Petitioner, the Court cannot

determine the nature of Petitioner’s claim(s). (Petition, at 3.) Petitioner has raised incoherent

claims regarding his underlying criminal convictions, and Petitioner fails to state a claim under

2241 or any other applicable federal law. As such, the instant petition must be dismissed for

failure to state a claim for relief. 

RECOMMENDATION

Case 1:08-cv-00246-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 04/04/08 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

2

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a

cognizable claim; and,

2. Judgment be entered, thereby terminating this action.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00246-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2