Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01388/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01388-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD RAY WELLS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-05-1388 GEB KJM P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges the state’s policy of refusing to provide notary service to

prisoners unless they have money in their trust accounts to cover the fee. He alleges he has been

unable to file court actions in other states to challenge his conviction and, it appears, various

prior convictions. Petitioner does not allege his continued confinement violates the federal

constitution, a prerequisite for federal habeas corpus relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,

Case 2:05-cv-01388-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 08/08/05 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

2

67-68 (1991). His challenge is to a condition of his confinement, which is not cognizable in a

federal civil rights action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of

habeas corpus be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: August 4, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

well1388.157

Case 2:05-cv-01388-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2