Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01113/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01113-1/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

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S-06-1113 LKK PAN P

vs.

NEIL CLARK, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 3, 2006, petitioner submitted an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner seeks an order altering the amount of or ceasing restitution payments

respondent deducts from his trust account. A judge “entertaining an application for a writ of

habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4, Rules Governing Section

Case 2:06-cv-01113-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 08/25/06 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

2254 Cases. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts provides, in relevant part, that “If it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner is

not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition. . . .” By its terms, §

2254 is applicable only to a prisoner claiming the right to be released from custody on the basis

that he or she is being imprisoned “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999). A petitioner may

not use § 2254 solely to challenge a restitution order. (Id.) Petitioner’s sole claim for habeas

relief is based on a restitution fine and, therefore, petitioner has failed to specify appropriate

grounds for relief in his petition. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request

to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2243; Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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).

DATED: August 25, 2006.

14

mark1113.fr

Case 2:06-cv-01113-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2