Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01816/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01816-1/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

 Petitioner also requests that the court issue an order granting petitioner leave to proceed 1

in forma pauperis in a civil rights action. The court will not issue such an order. Whether a

plaintiff satisfies the requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is determined when a civil rights

action has been filed and the plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS G. CLAIBORNE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1816 LKK DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHAB.,

et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On September 21, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:06-cv-01816-LKK -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/21/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 21, 2006, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is summarily dismissed because it plainly appears from the face of

the petition that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.

DATED: December 20, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01816-LKK -DAD Document 8 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2