Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01735/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01735-1/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

KENNETH MILLS, No. CIV S-05-1735-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), filed on August 26, 2005.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the

instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Specifically,

petitioner states that the petition concerns: “Response to Civil Complaint ‘42 U.S.C. § 1983.’”

Petitioner also states as a grounds for relief: “‘Illegal Order’ – ‘Dismissal’ for Civil Case # 2:01-

CV-01643-FCD-JFM (HC) ‘Mills’ v. ‘Attorney General of California.’” A review of the docket

Case 2:05-cv-01735-DFL-CMK Document 12 Filed 12/13/05 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

By order to show cause issued on October 18, 2005, the court gave petitioner an

1

opportunity to explain why this case is nothing more than an improper attempt to appeal a final

judgment in a prior case. Petitioner’s response, which outlines various health problems

petitioner has, is unavailing. 

2

for this prior case reflects that a judgment of dismissal was entered on November 29, 2001. The

docket does not reflect that petitioner ever filed a request for a certificate of appealability or

otherwise sought to appeal that judgment. The instant petition is an improper appeal from the

judgment entered in case number 01-1643. 

1

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. 

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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Petitioner will be directed to show cause why the instant petition should not, therefore, be

dismissed.

DATED: December 9, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01735-DFL-CMK Document 12 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2