Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01321/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01321-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY J. COHEA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

L.E. SCRIBNER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01321-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND

PETITIONER A CIVIL RIGHTS

COMPLAINT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED as it does not allege grounds that would entitle

Petitioner to habeas corpus relief. These Findings and

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On November 3, 2006, Petitioner

filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:06-cv-01321-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 01/03/07 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

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. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's response present no grounds for questioning

the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Petitioner merely asks that the

court construe this action as a civil rights action instead of

dismissing this action. For judicial efficiency, it is this

court's policy to dismiss such actions and allow the Petitioner to

file a new civil rights action. Because the PLRA does not apply

to habeas actions, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this

dismissal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 10, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as it

does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas

corpus relief; and,

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the

standard form for a civil rights action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01321-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2