Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD L. TUCKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

STUART J. RYAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-05773 REC TAG HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION TO CLARIFY CLAIMS FOR

RELIEF, IF NECESSARY (Doc. 10)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO

COMPEL CDC TO RETURN LEGAL

MATERIAL AND GRANT ACCESS TO THE

COURT (Doc. 29)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER THIRTY

DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE IN

WHICH TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DATED MARCH 11,

2005 (Doc. 28) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant Petition on May 27, 2004. (Doc. 1). On September 7, 2004,

Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend Petition To Clarify Claims For Relief, If Needed. (Doc. 10). 

In that motion, apparently concerned that some three months had elapsed since the filing of the

Petition during which Petitioner had received “no response as to his petition,” Petitioner offered,

via amended petition, “to clarify” his claims for relief “if necessary.” (Doc. 10). On December

9, 2004, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that some claims were not

exhausted. (Doc. 20). 

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 33 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 3
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

On December 27, 2004, Petitioner filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.

22). On March 11, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge issued her Findings and

Recommendations that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Doc. 28). On March 18, 2005,

Petitioner filed a Motion for Order to Compel C.D.C. To Return Legal Material And Grant

Access To The Court. (Doc. 29). In that Motion, Petitioner alleges that due to his transfer from

one prison facility to another, he was denied access to a law library, that he was confined without

access to ink, pen, copiers, and telephones, and that he was not given access to his trial

transcripts and notes of the case. (Doc. 29). 

Because the Magistrate Judge has issued Findings and Recommendations regarding the

Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner’s “Motion to Clarify Claims for Relief, If Necessary” appears to be

moot and accordingly is denied. 

Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Compel C.D.C. To Return Legal Material And Grant

Access To The Court, insofar as it seeks a Court order requiring the California Department of

Corrections to take actions regarding Petitioner’s access to the law library, legal research

materials, and his files, is beyond the authority of this Court in a habeas corpus proceeding. The

California Department of Corrections has the day to day control over Petitioner and his

conditions of confinement. Within the context of a habeas corpus proceeding, the Court has no

authority to direct the Department of Corrections to conduct its duties vis-a-vis Petitioner in a

particular way. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is denied.

However, to the extent that Petitioner is in essence requesting additional time in which to

file his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, in light of the

difficulties and delays recounted in Petitioner’s Motion, the Court will grant Petitioner an

additional thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order in which to file his Objections to

the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Clarify Claims for Relief, If Necessary is HEREBY DENIED 

(Doc. 10);

2. Petitioner’s Motion to Compel is HEREBY DENIED (Doc. 29); and

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 33 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order in which to

file his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, dated

March 11, 2005. (Doc. 28). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 33 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 3