Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00039-0/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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WADE LEWIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-0039 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. #1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 12, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). The Advisory Committee

Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its

Case 1:06-cv-00039-SMS Document 3 Filed 01/27/06 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 cd 2

own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).

In the petition, Petitioner raises three claims. In Ground One, Petitioner claims he was denied

his “state-created right to parole.” In Ground Two, he claims he is subject to an unconstitutional “noparole policy” in California. In Ground Three, he claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel

at trial for the underlying conviction.

The instant petition is a hybrid petition challenging parole and the underlying conviction;

however, the petition cannot proceed on both challenges. Since the majority of the petition is

devoted to the denial of parole, the instant action should proceed on those claims. To the extent that

Petitioner wishes to challenge his underlying conviction, Petitioner should file a separate petition. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Ground Three of the petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 Recommendation.” 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: January 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00039-SMS Document 3 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 2