Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00069/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00069-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
Joe T. Miller
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE T. MILLER,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0069 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED

HEREIN, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. 14]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On February 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

recommending that two of claims be dismissed from the petition, and the action proceed on

Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim only. This Findings and Recommendation

was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty

(30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On March 13, 2006, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. In his objections, Petitioner concedes that his Eighth Amendment claim

challenging the California Department of Corrections denial of gastric bypass surgery, must be

raised by way of filing a section 1983 complaint. However, Petitioner contends that his claim

challenging the sentencing enhancement is cognizable as he has stated a federal claim. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

Case 1:06-cv-00069-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 03/30/06 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

27

28

2

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, with one exception. In viewing Petitioner’s petition

liberally, it appears that Petitioner raises a due process challenge to his sentence, which may

under certain circumstances be cognizable pursuant to § 2254. Therefore, the action shall

proceed on that claim also. Petitioner's objections present no other grounds for questioning the

Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 27, 2006, is ADOPTED IN

as MODIFIED herein;

2. Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim challenging the California Department of

Correction’s decision to deny him gastric bypass surgery is DISMISSED from the

action for failure to state a cognizable claim; and 

3. The matter is further back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00069-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2