Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02463/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02463-7/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

Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea agreement 1

was not knowing or voluntary. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT CRUZ, No. CIV S-06-2463-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

VEAL, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for

an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 16). 

In his motion, petitioner asserts that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing

because he suffers from dementia and is “mildly retarded.” Petitioner does not, however, point

to any new evidence which he seeks to adduce in the context of the instant federal proceedings.

In addition, his mental state is not relevant to the substantive claims raised in the petition. For 1

these reasons, the court finds that petitioner has not demonstrated the need for an evidentiary

Case 2:06-cv-02463-MCE -CMK Document 35 Filed 05/25/07 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

hearing. 

It appears that petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is, in fact, related to

his March 8, 2007, “Request for Drug Treatment.” In that document, petitioner argues that he

needs drug treatment in order to rehabilitate himself and that the prison is not meeting this need. 

Again, the court notes that this issue is not part of the substantive petition before the court. To

the extent petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, such a claim is properly

the subject of a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s motion for

an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 16) 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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02463-MCE -CMK Document 35 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2