Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01108/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01108-6/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

MARK HOWARD CRAVER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1108 DFL EFB P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 17, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:05-cv-01108-DFL-EFB Document 22 Filed 03/21/07 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

2

 Petitioner's claim that he is still on parole does not alter the finding of mootness. 

Petitioner is not claiming that his parole was lengthened because of a denial of work credits but

only that he was released to parole later in time than he would have been had there been no

mischaracterization of his offense of conviction. Thus, the fact of parole and its length are not

causally connected to his claim of error. Moreover, petitioner's claim of error is based entirely

upon state law. Mistakes of state law by prison administrators, absent something more, do not

state a federal constitutional claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 17, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s March 10, 2006, motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed.

DATED: March 20, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/

Case 2:05-cv-01108-DFL-EFB Document 22 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 2