Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01648/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01648-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT CRUZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1648 GEB EFB P

vs.

M. VEAL, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On July 26, 2005, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

requesting that the court shorten his sentence because he assisted a prison guard who was

attacked by a different prisoner. He also sought an order directing that he be given treatment for

drug addiction. On November 14, 2006, the court found that petitioner did not state a cognizable

claim for relief, noted that petitioner did not name the proper respondent, explained the

deficiencies and dismissed the petition with leave to amend within 30 days. 

On December 5, 2006, petitioner filed an amended petition, again naming M. Veal as the

respondent. His amended pleading again seeks early release for protecting a guard and treatment

for drug addiction. These allegations do not support any legally cognizable theory upon which

the court could find that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the

Case 2:06-cv-01648-GEB-EFB Document 10 Filed 12/20/06 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

United States. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a); 2242. Therefore, this action must be dismissed with

prejudice.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice

for petitioner’s failure to allege facts based upon which the court could find that he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 19, 2006.

\

Case 2:06-cv-01648-GEB-EFB Document 10 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2