Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02014/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas Lee Horn, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2014-PHX-SMM (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Conviction and Sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Section 2255 provides that:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress

claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court

was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in 

excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral

attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside 

or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of

his constitutional rights while incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections. Plaintiff's

incarceration stems from a conviction in State court. Plaintiff is now attempting to file a § 2255

motion in the context of this § 1983 action. Aside from other possible flaws, Plaintiff's § 2255

motion is not properly filed in this Court because there have been no criminal proceedings in

this Court against Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not been sentenced by this Court. Accordingly, the

Case 2:04-cv-02014-SMM-LOA Document 151 Filed 06/12/06 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 -

Court recommends that Plaintiff's § 2255 Motion be denied without prejudice, or in the

alternative, that the Motion be stricken. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that on Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Conviction

and Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (document # 108) be DENIED without prejudice,

or alternatively, that the § 2255 motion be stricken. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules 72,

6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which

to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation

by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s

recommendation. See, Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02014-SMM-LOA Document 151 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 2