Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00745-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Charles E. Johnson,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0745 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Board of Prison Terms, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus challenging

the Board of Prison Terms’ revocation of his administrative

parole. He claims the revocation was not supported by evidence

submitted at the hearing and the Board violated state law by

extending his maximum parole term from three to four years.

The petitioner fails to cite federal constitutional law or

raise a federal claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)

(district court to entertain habeas petition only where

petitioner alleges he is in custody in violation of the

Case 2:05-cv-00745-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 04/27/05 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

Constitution or laws of the United States); see also 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3). Petitioner also fails to name his custodian as

respondent. See Rule 2, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

the United States District Courts (Federal Habeas Rules)

(petitioner currently in custody under a state-court judgment

must name as respondent the state officer who has his custody). 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends the petition be

dismissed. Federal Habeas Rule 4 (court must dismiss petition if

it plainly appears from the petition that petitioner is not

entitled to relief). 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00745-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2