Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02150/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02150-1/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

JAMES EDWARD MOTTON,

Petitioner, 2:06-cv-2150-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion that was

construed by the Clerk of the Court as an 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 November 16, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

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

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations together with a proposed application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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

Case 2:06-cv-02150-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 12/11/06 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

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

proper analysis. Petitioner’s proposed habeas petition challenges the state parole board’s

decision on September 20, 2006, to deny parole for a four-year period. The proposed petition

reveals that petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies on any claim arising from his recent

denial. Petitioner’s habeas petition is therefore premature. If petitioner wishes to pursue claims

that do not challenge his continuing confinement, he may file a civil rights action alleging such

claims but must not raise claims that necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 16, 2006, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to the proper commencement of

other proceedings.

Dated: December 11, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02150-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2