Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00196/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00196-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS RUBE TERRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES YATES, WARDEN )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 06-0196 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICED

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. In support of his petition, Petitioner states only as

follows: “My lawyer never told me where I was in court, or what the result was. He never

told me he quit me, I am at a loss and don’t know what to do.”

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams

v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the

Case 1:06-cv-00196-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all

petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320,

117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997); Jeffries v.

Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9

th Cir. 1997) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769

(5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other

grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only

applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). The instant petition was filed on February

22, 2006, after the enactment of the AEDPA, thus it is governed by its provisions. 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply

with respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court.

Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for

habeas corpus will not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision

that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal

law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision

that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123

S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v.

Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). 

“A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established

federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather, that

application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are

constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3391-3392

(1983); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086 (1969), direct review of a

criminal conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to challenge that conviction. 

Case 1:06-cv-00196-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1719 (1993). In addition, the

state court’s factual determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must

accept all factual findings made by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the

presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);

Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99,

116 S.Ct. 457 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1388 (9

th Cir. 1997). 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

the district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner

can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

“According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon

the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979)

citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to

Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, Petitioner does not

claim that his custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States. For that reason, this petition does not state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be

dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus

raising a cognizable claim.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

Case 1:06-cv-00196-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00196-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 4