Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01152/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01152-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL CRAIG COURTOIS,

Petitioner,

v.

C.D.C., et al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-1152 OWW SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE

CLAIM

[Doc. 21]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. This Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. 

On September 6, 2006, and September 8, 2006, Petitioner filed timely objections to the

Findings and Recommendation. (Court Docs. 22, 23.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. In his objections, Petitioner raises incoherent claims

regarding his criminal conviction in Humboldt County. However, any claims regarding

Case 1:05-cv-01152-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 09/29/06 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

2

Petitioner’s underlying conviction from Humboldt County were previously dismissed from this

action for lack of jurisdiction. (Court Doc. 16.) Furthermore, any claims Petitioner is attempting

to raise regarding his conditions of confinement are not cognizable via § 2254, and must be

raised by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Petitioner's objections

present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 23, 2006, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. This terminates this

action in its entirety; and

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01152-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2