Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00341/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00341-2/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

BRYANT W. PLITT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ON HABEAS CORPUS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00341 AWI SMS HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

On February 15, 2007, Petitioner mailed a letter to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Sacramento Division opened a habeas

corpus case based on this letter. On March 2, 2007, the action was transferred to the Fresno Division. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). 

It appears this case was opened erroneously. Petitioner did not submit a petition; rather, he

submitted a letter in which he alerts the federal court that he is currently seeking a petition for writ of

habeas corpus in the Fresno County Superior Court. He states that he will not be able to meet the

Case 1:07-cv-00341-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 04/03/07 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

This dismissal will not bar Petitioner from filing a federal petition at a later date. However, Petitioner is advised 1

that there is a one-year statute of limitations with respect to federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d). The Court takes no position on the timeliness of any future petition. Should the issue be raised at that time,

Petitioner will be given an opportunity to address the issue and present his evidence. 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

time restraints pertaining to federal relief and further states he will be able to present evidence to

support this contention when needed. Whether or not Petitioner files a federal petition in the future,

it is apparent Petitioner is not attempting to seek federal relief at this time. This is borne out by his

subsequent letter dated February 28, 2007, in which he requests an explanation as to how it came

about that a case was opened on his behalf. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

1

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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: April 2, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00341-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2