Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01766/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01766-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAN S. GEIGER,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY, et.al.,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1766 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C.

§ 2241

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on December 7, 2006. Petitioner contends that he is

being denied access to the courts by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals failure to rule on his

pending appeal and motions. 

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 face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the

district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490 (9 Cir. 1990). th

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal

Case 1:06-cv-01766-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 01/17/07 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

27

28

2

prisoner can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

In his petition, Petitioner states that he is currently in custody serving a 108 month

sentence at the Taft Correctional Institution, with a projected release date of June 17, 2012. 

Petitioner states that he filed a timely notice of appeal in February 2005, which was dismissed

then immediately reinstated by the Sixth Circuit in July 2005. Petitioner indicates that there is no

appellate briefing schedule at this time. Petitioner filed a timely motion for leave to appeal in

forma pauperis, appointment of counsel, and for transcripts. The District Court denied the

motions in October 2005, and ordered that the motions be re-filed in the Sixth Circuit Court of

Appeals. Petitioner contends that he is unlawfully being denied access to the courts due to the

delay in the appellate court addressing his pending appeal and motions, thereby warranting relief

by way of release pending appeal. (Petition, at 7.) 

Petitioner fails to state a cognizable claim pursuant to section 2241. First, this Court has

no power or jurisdiction over actions taken or not taken by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Second, Petitioner’s claim that he is being denied access to the court, is without merit.

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the

inmate wishes to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil

rights actions. Id. at 354. The State is not required to enable the inmate to discover grievances

or to litigate effectively once in court. Id. 

In his petition, Petitioner states that on November 2, 2006, he contacted Ms. Diane

Schnur, Case Manager at the Sixth Circuit, to discuss the status of his unopposed motions. “She

stated at that time that no decision or order had been issued by the Court, no judicial panel or

single judge had been assigned to either the case or particular motions, and that there is no time

designation when such order may be issued. Ms. Schnur further stated that all motions were

referred to staff attorneys for review and that if, and when they decided that the motions

warranted judicial review, that is when a panel would be convened.” (Petition, at 9.) (Emphasis

in original.) Thus, it is evident that the Sixth Circuit is aware of Petitioner’s pending motions

Case 1:06-cv-01766-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 01/17/07 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

27

28

3

and will issue a ruling in due course. Thus, Petitioner has not been denied access to the court. 

 RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 fifteen (15) 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 Recommendations.” 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 16, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01766-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3