Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01809/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01809-4/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

DANNY ATTERBURY,

Petitioner, 2:03-cv-1809-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

DAVE GRAZINI, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a third amended

petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, in which he challenges his 1989 conviction and his plea

of not guilty by reason of insanity. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:03-cv-01809-GEB-DAD Document 101 Filed 09/19/05 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

1 In his “Revised Motion,” petitioner renews his request

for a court order prohibiting his confinement at the El Dorado

County Jail during proceedings held in connection with the

prosecutor’s petition filed in the Superior Court seeking to

extend petitioner’s commitment. See Cal. Penal Code § 1026.5(b). 

The court agrees with the conclusion set out in the findings and

recommendations that in this respect petitioner is seeking relief

which is beyond the scope of this habeas action. As noted in the

findings and recommendations, if petitioner is concerned

regarding the conditions of his confinement at the county jail,

he should raise them with his appointed counsel in the pending

state court proceedings and present them to the state court (see

California Penal Code § 1026(b)(5) and (6)) or, if appropriate,

pursue a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging

the conditions of his confinement. He cannot do so in this

habeas corpus action. 

2

On May 17, 2005, petitioner filed documents titled, “Intrinsic

Information Regarding Objections To Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations,” and “Revised Motion For Emergency

Injunctive Relief, Against Presumably Proper Parties.”1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 13,

2005, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s May 6, 2005 motion for emergency

injunctive relief is denied; and

Case 2:03-cv-01809-GEB-DAD Document 101 Filed 09/19/05 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

3

3. Petitioner’s May 17, 2005 revised motion for

injunctive relief is denied. 

Dated: September 16, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01809-GEB-DAD Document 101 Filed 09/19/05 Page 3 of 3