Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01365-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

ANTHONY-STEVEN WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 06-1365 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241

[Doc. 18]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 5, 2006. (Court

Doc. 1.) Because the Court could not ascertain the nature of Petitioner’s claims, on November

29, 2006, the Court directed Petitioner to file an amended petition. (Court Doc. 12.)

Petitioner filed an amended petition on December 8, 2006. (Court Doc. 18.) 

DISCUSSION

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 (9 Cir. 1990). th

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

Case 1:06-cv-01365-LJO -DLB Document 24 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal

prisoner can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

In his petition, Petitioner states that he is not challenging a sentence or conviction. 

Rather, he contends that Respondent, Warden Smith, has failed to release him from custody in

retaliation for failing to obey the law. (Petition, at 4.) Petitioner attaches a letter from the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (Petition, at 10.) The letter, dated June 9, 2005,

and states that case number #4:01-CR-3040 shall be adjusted and Petitioner should be released

on bond. (Id.) Because it appears that Petitioner is seeking release pursuant to the letter from the

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Petitioner should seek relief in that Court. This Court is unable

to direct Petitioner’s release on bond. As such, Petitioner has improperly sought relief pursuant

to section 2241 in this Court, and the petition must be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a

cognizable claim;

2. All pending motions should be DENIED as MOOT (Docs. 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23);

and

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment.

This Findings and Recommendations is 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 California. 

Within fifteen (15) 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 Recommendations.” 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

Case 1:06-cv-01365-LJO -DLB Document 24 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

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: January 16, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01365-LJO -DLB Document 24 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3