Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00659/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00659-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy E. Kendall
Petitioner
Cynthia Tampkins
Respondent

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

LEROY E. KENDALL,

Petitioner,

v.

CYNTHIA TAMPKINS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO HC

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION 

THAT COURT DISMISS CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, 

AND 4 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND 

ALLOW PETITION TO PROCEED ON 

CLAIM 5 ONLY

(Doc. 6) 

Petitioner, Leroy E. Kendall, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserts five claims: (1) unconstitutionally crowded 

living conditions; (2) unconstitutional lack of healthcare; (3) unconstitutionally poor health care; (4) 

unconstitutional assignment of state prisoners to county jails; and (5) newly discovered evidence that 

the district attorney coached the victim to lie during Petitioner’s trial. The Court referred the matter 

to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On June 1, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which she first 

recommended that the Court dismiss claims one through four, which concern conditions of 

confinement, since those claims must be presented in a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 

are not cognizable in a habeas petition. She recommended that the Court permit the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus to proceed only on claim five, which states a cognizable claim alleging newly 

discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. 

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 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

The findings and recommendations, which were served Petitioner on June 1, 2005, provided 

that objections could be served within thirty days. Petitioner did not file any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the 

record as a whole and applicable law, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 1, 2016, are adopted in full;

2. Claims one through four are dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s bringing 

them in a separate action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

3. The habeas petition shall proceed only on claim 5, which alleges newly discovered 

evidence of prosecutorial misconduct; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a form for alleging civil 

rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a separate action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2