Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01076/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01076-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL JOSEPH MALDONADO,

Petitioner,

v.

SCRIBNER,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-01076 OWW DLB HC

ORDER VACATING ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FOR ISSUANCE OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[Docs. 11, 12]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 2, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter

judgment. These Findings and Recommendation were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of that order. 

On August 20, 2007 and October 15, 2007, respectively, Petitioner filed a motion to extend time. 

On September 14, 2007 and October 10, 2007, respectively, the court granted Petitioner an

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On November 26, 2007, Petitioner filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

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

a de novo review of the case. In his objections, Petitioner contends that he is challenging his

validation as a gang member and subsequent placement in the Security Housing Unit, thereby

Case 1:07-cv-01076-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 01/11/08 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

depriving him of potential good time credits. Based on Petitioner’s allegations, the Court finds

that Petitioner’s claim is cognizable under § 2254, and shall proceed forward. Accordingly, the

Recommendation to dismiss the instant petition as not cognizable under § 2254 is not adopted,

and the matter shall be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of a briefing schedule. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s January 2, 2008, order adopting the Findings and Recommendation

and entry of judgment is VACATED;

2. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 2, 2007, is not ADOPTED; and

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of a briefing

schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01076-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2