Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00376/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00376-1/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

27

28

 In fact, on May 10, 2006, the Findings and Recommendations was returned to the Court with a notation 1

“RETURN TO SENDER - Out of Custody.” (Court Doc. 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f) each party is under a

continuing duty to inform the Court of any change of address. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior

address of record of the party is effective service. Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

BAKERSFIELD LERDO PRETRIAL,

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0376 OWW SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DISREGARDING AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Docs. 4, 6]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. The Findings and Recommendations 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. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed

objections. Petitioner did, however, file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 1

12, 2006. The amended petition suffers the same defects as that of the initial petition, in that

Petitioner is attempting to challenge an ongoing criminal proceeding to which he has not yet been

convicted, and is seeking to raise claims challenging his conditions of confinement which are not

Case 1:06-cv-00376-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 07/31/06 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

27

28

2

cognizable via § 2254. (Amended Petition, at 4-5.) Accordingly, the amended petition shall be

DISREGARDED as the analysis in the Findings and Recommendations of April 28, 2006,

remains valid, and is equally applicable to the amended petition. 

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 finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued April 28, 2006, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed May 12, 2006, is

DISREGARDED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment. This terminates this

action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00376-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2