Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00534/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00534-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY McCLELLAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

KYLE W. JONES, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-CV-00534 AWI GSA HC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

On April 6, 2007, Petitioner Gregory McClellan (“Petitioner”) filed the complaint upon

which this action proceeds. The complaint requests that the court: (1) Determine the legality of

Petitioner’s parole conditions; (2) Order prison officials to provide better access to the law library;

(3) Order prison officials to provide addresses of “CalPAP Attorneys”; (4) Determine the legality of

Petitioner’s probable cause hearing; (5) Determine the legality of Plaintiff’s parole revocation

hearing; (6) Award monetary damages; (7) Order that Petitioner be provided with transcripts of his

revocation proceedings; and (8) Order other relief deemed necessary. The complaint was designated

by the Clerk of the Court as a prisoner civil rights action. On May 21, 2007, Magistrate Judge

Dennis L. Beck determined that the Clerk of the Court had incorrectly designated this action as

prison civil rights action, and Judge Beck re-designated this action as a regular civil rights action. 

On November 15, 2007, Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin concluded that this action is not a regular

Case 1:07-cv-00534-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 01/18/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

civil action and re-designated this action as a habeas corpus action, presumably because the

complaint concerned Petitioner’s parole conditions and the revocation of Petitioner’s parole. 

On November 28, 2007, Judge Austin issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice because Petitioner had not exhausted

his state remedies concerning his parole conditions and parole revocation with the state courts. The

Findings and Recommendation was served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On December 21, 2007,

Petitioner filed objections to the Findings 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. In the interests of justice, the court will delay adopting the Findings and

Recommendation for thirty days. The procedural history of this case is complicated because

Petitioner combined entirely different types of actions into one complaint and because the assigned

Magistrate Judges attempted to “save Petitioner from himself” by repeatedly re-designating this

action in an attempt to ensure the court addressed Petitioner’s actual claims rather than proceed with

this action’s based on Petitioner’s label. However, this process has resulted in Petitioner now

claiming that the court erred in re-designating this action as a habeas corpus petition and arguing that

habeas rules should not be applied because this is not a habeas action. 

In the objections, Petitioner states that he “does not ask this Court to determine the legality of

his parole conditions, nor the legality of his Probable Cause and Parole Revocation Hearings.” The

objections state that Petitioner wishes to amend the complaint to delete issues one, four, and five. 

The objections then proceed to generally discuss how Petitioner’s prison conditions and parole

conditions deprived him of his constitutional rights. In light of Petitioner’s objections, the court

concludes that Petitioner does not wish to proceed with this action as a habeas corpus petition and

Petitioner does not wish to address either the conditions of Petitioner’s parole or the hearings that

resulted in parole being revoked. Without these habeas corpus claims, this action should not

proceed as a habeas corpus action and habeas rules concerning exhaustion would not apply. 

The court is willing to re-designate this action one more time so that Petitioner may proceed. 

 However, it is not entirely clear from the complaint and objections what claims Petitioner desires to

Case 1:07-cv-00534-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 01/18/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

keep because these documents are focused on the conditions of Petitioner’s parole. It appears, based

on the eight claims for relief contained in the original complaint, that what would be left in this

action would be claims concerning law library access, court access, and attorney access. A

complaint containing such claims would be designated by the court as a prisoner civil rights action. 

However, because it appears Petitioner’s vague claims may have resulted in the court mistakenly redesignating this action twice, the court will not attempt to “guess” again and the court will order

Petitioner to file an amended complaint in which he clarifies the exact claims underlying this action. 

To avoid further confusion, Petitioner is directed to specify only those facts supporting his specific

claims and not include any allegations about other areas. Upon receipt of the amended complaint,

the court will review it and, if necessary, re-designate the action again and refer it back to the

Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The complaint in this action is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

2. Any amended complaint SHALL BE FILED within thirty days from this order’s date

of service;

3. Any amended complaint must contain only the specific causes of action at issue;

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for a

prisoner civil rights action.; 

5. The court will delay addressing the Findings and Recommendations until after thirty

days from this order’s date of service; and

6. Petitioner is FOREWARNED that failure to file an amended complaint will result in

the court adopting the pending Findings and Recommendations and dismissing this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00534-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3