Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01319-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY W. SPENCER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1319 FCD GGH P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 10, 2005, 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 twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The magistrate judge found that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the

petition because petitioner was no longer in custody with respect to the at-issue prison

disciplinary conviction. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490, 109 S. Ct. 1923, 1925 (1989) (per

curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). Petitioner was no longer serving any sentence or

Case 2:05-cv-01319-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 09/15/05 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

suffering from any punishment related to the conviction when he filed this action. In his

objections, petitioner argues that because of this conviction, he is prevented from seeking

restoration of time credits assessed as a result of a different disciplinary conviction. This

circumstance does not render petitioner in custody with respect to the at-issue disciplinary

conviction.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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 August 10, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED:September 15, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01319-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2