Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02541/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02541-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD CESAREZ, No. CIV S-07-2541-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, initially filed what he captioned as a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2). The Clerk of the Court, therefore, opened this action as a

habeas corpus petition, subject to the $5.00 filing fee, which was waived upon the court’s grant

of in forma pauperis status on December 3, 2007 (Doc. 5). 

On December 14, 2007, the court dismissed the action with leave to amend

because petitioner had not named the correct respondent for a habeas corpus petition in federal

court. In response to that order, petitioner has filed a new pleading on a State of California form

complaint for personal injuries, property damage, and/or wrongful death (Doc. 9). On a civil

cover sheet submitted therewith, petitioner asserts that he is alleging state law tort claims of false

Case 2:07-cv-02541-FCD-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/15/08 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

arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and defamation. Given that it is now clear that

petitioner does not seek habeas corpus relief, this action should be dismissed, without prejudice

to petitioner’s ability to file an appropriate civil action for damages in the appropriate court. 

Given that petitioner states that he is raising state law tort claims only, and no federal claims, it

would seem that the appropriate venue for petitioner’s claims would be in the courts of the State

of California and not this court. To the extent petitioner seeks damages for violations of his civil

rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §. 1983, the court expresses no opinion at this time whether such

claims would be cognizable. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment of dismissal and

close this file. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 14, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02541-FCD-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 2