Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00538-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Audrey King
Respondent
James Payne
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

JAMES PAYNE,

Petitioner,

v.

AUDREY KING, Executive Director of 

Coalinga State Hospital,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00538-LJO-BAM HC

ORDER ADOPTING THE 

RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COURT 

CONVERT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS 

CORPUS BROUGHT UNDER 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 TO A PETITION UNDER 

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. 29)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 July 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which she 

recommended that the Court convert the petition to one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the 

statutory section generally applicable to habeas petitions brought by state prisoners. The findings 

and recommendations, which were served on all parties on the same date, provided that objections 

could be served within thirty days and replies within fourteen days after the filing of any objections. 

Neither party filed objections.

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

entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:14-cv-00538-LJO-SKO Document 30 Filed 08/28/15 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

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed March 

30, 2015, be adopted in full. The petition will hereafter be considered as if it had properly been 

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00538-LJO-SKO Document 30 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 2