Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00702-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

ALFREDO E. ZEPEDA,

Petitioner, CV F 07 0702 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

WARDEN YATES, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections at Pleasant Valley State Prison, has filed this

action on a form for a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Though Plaintiff identifies his underlying conviction and

sentence in his petition, he does not set forth any claims that sound in

habeas corpus. Federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is

limited to claims that allege a constitutional violation in the state criminal

proceedings. See Paradis v. Arave, 130 F.3d 385, 390 (9 Cir. 1997); Herrera th

v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993). 

Petitioner appears to be challenging conduct by the California

Case 1:07-cv-00702-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Department of Corrections in regards to his medical care. Petitioner does

not assert that he is ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court

on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws

and treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). That petitioner

asserts that the conduct of the Department of Corrections in regards to his

medical care violates the constitution does not state a claim for habeas

relief.

The Court will therefore recommend that the petition be dismissed

without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file this action as a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon dismissal of this action, the

Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to forward to Petitioner the form for a

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be

dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United

States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within twenty days after being served with

these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all

objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d

449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the specified time th

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 1:07-cv-00702-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00702-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3