Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02194/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02194-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teresa Schwartz
Respondent
Anthony Starkes
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

ANTHONY STARKES,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-2194 FCD PAN P

vs. ORDER AND

TERESA SCHWARTZ, WARDEN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request 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 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 2254 Cases.

Case 2:05-cv-02194-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 06/16/06 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

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: June 15, 2006.

/001; star2194.fr

Case 2:05-cv-02194-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2