Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06856/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06856-1/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

CION ADONIS PERALTA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, DIRECTOR,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-6856 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 20]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. 

On July 5, 2005, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Although the evidence supporting the hearing

officer’s decision was disputed, the record was not devoid of some evidence, making the

Case 1:03-cv-06856-AWI -LJO Document 22 Filed 10/14/05 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

27

28

2

revocation of good-time credits without support or otherwise arbitrary. See Superintendent v.

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Habeas corpus relief is not available because the hearing

officer’s decision had some basis in fact. See Id. at 456.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 14, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06856-AWI -LJO Document 22 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2