Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00326/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00326-1/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

JOHN RICHARDSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0326 DFL GGH P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed March 5, 2007, petitioner was ordered to show cause, within

twenty days, why his action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. The

twenty day period expired, and petitioner did not file a response to the show cause order.

On April 10, 2007, petitioner filed an amended complaint. In this document,

petitioner states that he is seeking a writ of habeas corpus because he is being illegally restrained

by the Rancho Cordova Police Department. Petitioner also states that he is seeking money

damages. Petitioner does not address the issue of whether he has exhausted state court remedies. 

If petitioner seeks money damages, he must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Because there is no showing that petitioner exhausted state court remedies, the

court recommends that this action be dismissed. 

Case 2:07-cv-00326-JKS-GGH Document 10 Filed 05/01/07 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: 5/1/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

rich0326.fsc

Case 2:07-cv-00326-JKS-GGH Document 10 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 2