Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00930/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00930-1/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD BURCH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

D. ADAMS, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-CV-0930 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #4]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 2, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner

to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court

be DIRECTED to forward a blank form for filing a civil rights action and to enter judgment. The

Findings and Recommendation 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. 

On August 12, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-00930-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 08/24/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. In his objections, Plaintiff contends

that the court should either resolve his civil rights claims in this habeas corpus action or demand the

Kings County Superior Court issue further rulings regarding Plaintiff’s claims. While the court is

not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s frustration about having to file a different action, the court has no

ability to hear Plaintiff’s civil rights claims in this habeas corpus action. The remedy available in

this court is a federal civil rights action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 2, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form for filing a civil rights

action; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00930-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2