Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00310-4/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

KEITH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, WARDEN

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-0310 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAY 20, 2005

AND DENYING ANY OUTSTANDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT

[Doc. 6]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 3, 2005. On May

18, 2005, Petitioner filed a second amended petition. On May 20, 2005, the Magistrate Judge

issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the instant petition for writ of habeas

be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim pursuant to § 2254. 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 August 26, 2005, and

November 15, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

In his objections, Petitioner contends that he filed the instant petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is advised, however, that the initial and amended petition were both

filed pursuant to § 2254. In any event, even if the petition was filed pursuant to § 2241, it is still

not cognizable. Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of

Case 1:05-cv-00310-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 12/06/05 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

2

the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a 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). The instant petition challenges the failure of prison officials to

adhere to the administrative grievance procedure and does not challenge the constitutionality of

Petitioner’s custody and is therefore not cognizable pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner's objections

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

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 Recommendations is

supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court notes that although the Findings and

Recommendations addressed the first, not amended petition, the amended petition raises the

same claims raised in the first petition and therefore the Recommendation to dismiss is supported

by the record. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued May 20, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

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

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

action in its entirety; and

4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00310-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2