Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00540-1/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

cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY MAGEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

LAW LIBRARIAN, et al. )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00540-REC-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 7)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. 6)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SENT PETITIONER FORM FOR FILING

CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On April 22, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this Court, alleging racially prejudiced policies by prison officials in providing access

Case 1:05-cv-00540-REC-TAG Document 8 Filed 11/03/05 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

cd 2

to the prison law library. (Doc. 1). On May 10, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for a temporary

restraining order raising the same issue. (Doc. 6). 

On September 22, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

Petitioner did not raise issues that would entitle Petitioner to habeas relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, but instead raised issues that should have been brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

(Doc. 7). This Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. To

date, the parties have not filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.

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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed September 22, 2005 (Doc. 7), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; 

3. Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 6), is DENIED as

MOOT;

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard forms for filing

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00540-REC-TAG Document 8 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2