Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02601/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02601-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN S. LYNN,

Petitioner,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT,

Respondents.

No. 2:14-cv-2601 WBS KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 22, 2015, 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 fourteen days. 

Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In his objections, it 

appears that petitioner seeks a court order directing the Sacramento County Superior Court to 

hear or grant petitioner’s motion for DNA testing. However, “federal district courts are courts of 

original, not appellate jurisdiction.” In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, 

this court is without authority to order the Sacramento County Superior Court to hold a hearing or 

provide petitioner with a DNA test.

////

Case 2:14-cv-02601-WBS-KJN Document 11 Filed 08/25/15 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) and Local Rule 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 July 22, 2015, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s motion to reopen this case (ECF No. 8), construed as a motion for relief 

from judgment, is denied.

Dated: August 25, 2015

/lynn2601.804

Case 2:14-cv-02601-WBS-KJN Document 11 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2