Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06271/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06271-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARI MARIE COLE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

FRESNO APPELLATE COURT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6271 OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

[Doc. 9 and 10]

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.

On March 14, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. 

These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty

days. Petitioner filed objections on April 12, 2006. 

Case 1:04-cv-06271-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 04/21/06 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

27

28 2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In her

objections, Petitioner states that contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s findings, her allegations

do attack the legality or duration of her confinement. Specifically, Petitioner states that she is

being illegally confined due to deprivation of her right to a fair trial. This, however, is not

the claim that Petitioner makes in her petition. Rather, as the Magistrate Judge found,

Petitioner addresses her petition to the state appellate court and states that she seeks a court

date and copies of her legal papers. Such matters are not properly the subject of a habeas

corpus petition pursuant to Section 2254.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

 March 14, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s

right to bring a petition raising the claims she states in her objections; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06271-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2