Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02466/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02466-0/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

ANTHONY SHARP,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2466 FCD GGH P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together 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).

Petitioner alleges that Deputy Attorney Hammond committed misconduct in her

representation of state employees in civil actions. Petitioner requests that Hammond be

criminally prosecuted. Petitioner also seeks monetary sanctions defendant Hammond.

The purpose of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

is to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence. The court does not have the authority to

Case 2:06-cv-02466-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/22/06 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

2

order a criminal prosecution in this habeas action. In addition, the court cannot order monetary

sanctions against Hammond in this habeas action. Because the court cannot order the relief

sought, the court recommends that this action be dismissed. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis is granted;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action 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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff 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: 12/22/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

sharp2446.ord

Case 2:06-cv-02466-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2