Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00663/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00663-3/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BROWNEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

L. E. SCRIBNER, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-0663 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 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 Rule 72-302. This case proceeds on

the amended petition filed November 30, 2006.

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[i]f it plainly appears from

Case 1:05-cv-00663-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 03/02/07 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 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” In this

case, Petitioner has stated no grounds for relief. For informational purposes, the form for a

Section 2254 petition provides a list of the most frequently raised grounds for relief. The

form specifically instructs the user not to check any of the listed grounds and states that if the

user selects one of these grounds for relief, he must allege facts. In this case, Petitioner has

merely circled “Denial of effective assistance of counsel,” and has alleged no facts. 

Therefore, this court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated no basis for relief in this court.

Accordingly, this court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this petition be dismissed

and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case and enter judgment for

Respondent.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00663-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 2