Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00876/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00876-1/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

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0876 LKK KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has now filed with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the order of July 12, 2006, the court informed petitioner that it could not

determine whether petitioner would be entitled to relief if he proved the allegations of his

petition, because he challenged the loss of conduct credit as the result of 250 disciplinary

hearings. The court directed him to provide sufficient detail for the court to determine whether 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00876-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 12/04/06 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

2

petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated in connection with a specifically described

hearing. Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 205 (9th Cir.1995). 7/12/06 Order at 2.

Petitioner has now filed an amended petition, which repeats his blanket claim that

all 250 disciplinary hearings were the result of official belief that he was malingering when in

fact he had deep vein thrombosis. He also alleges that at all the hearings, he was not provided a

staff assistant, allowed to attend, or permitted to call witnesses. Moreover, he alleges that he was

sedated at all of the proceedings and could not understand the charges against him. Once again,

he provides a broad claim of the denial of rights, covering all 250 hearings. 

The court cannot evaluate his petition because petitioner has made no attempt to

provide information on specific hearings. Indeed, the court cannot even determine whether this

case is properly heard in this division rather than in the Fresno division of this court. Moreover,

to the extent plaintiff has provided documentary evidence, the evidence suggests that at least

some of his disciplinary hearings were based on his assaultive behavior rather than on an

unsupported official belief that he was a malingerer. See Pet. at 15 (report from Classification

Committee). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00876-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 12/04/06 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

3

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed.

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: December 1, 2006. 

2 brad0876.156

Case 2:06-cv-00876-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 3