Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05662/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05662-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stuart Ryan
Respondent
Gerald L. Tucker
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD L. TUCKER, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5662 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DISREGARDING

PETITIONER’S MOTION ENTITLED

vs. “MOTION OF COMPLIANCE, RULE 5, 

TRAVERSE”

STUART RYAN, WARDEN, 

[Doc. 39]

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 3, 2004. Respondent filed

an answer to the petition on December 30, 2004, and Petitioner filed a traverse on March 21, 2005. 

Thus, the case is now ready for review on the merits.

On June 21, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Motion of Compliance, Rule 5, Traverse.”

In the motion, Petitioner contends that he attempted to mail his traverse to this Court on January 31,

2005, however, he subsequently discovered that it was not mailed by prison officials. Petitioner

contends that prison officials are tampering with his legal mail and documents. 

Petitioner is advised that this Court received his traverse on March 21, 2005, which was dated

January 31, 2005. Thus, the concerns expressed by Petitioner in relation to this case are unfounded and

the motion will be DISREGARDED. 

Case 1:04-cv-05662-OWW -DLB Document 40 Filed 07/08/05 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

To the extent Petitioner further wishes to raise his claims regarding prison officials tampering

with his legal mail, he may file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as it deals with the

conditions of his confinement, which is not cognizable in § 2254. 

Based on the foregoing, is it HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion is DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05662-OWW -DLB Document 40 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2