Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01455/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01455-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Davis
Respondent
Kevin Lee Robinson
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LEE ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD DAVIS,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1455 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. Under Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and 

summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court 

has conducted that review.

Petitioner’s claims concern Solano County convictions entered in 1984. As a result of 

those convictions, petitioner was ordered to serve six years imprisonment. Petitioner is currently 

serving a term of 118 years-to-life imprisonment imposed in 1999 also for a Solano County 

conviction. ECF No. 1 at 36.

The court can “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of [federal law].” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner fails to allege the 1984 convictions at 

Case 2:16-cv-01455-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 07/15/16 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

issue, or sentence entered thereon, resulted in petitioner’s present incarceration or contributed in 

any way to the length of his current sentence. Therefore, the court cannot “entertain” petitioner’s 

§ 2254 petition. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and

2. This case be closed. 

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 fourteen days 

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

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 

case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 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: July 15, 2016

1

robi1455.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01455-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 2