Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01628-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. L. Runnels
Respondent
Carmon Warren
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARMON WARREN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

D. L. RUNNELS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1628 AWI SMS HC 

ORDER CORRECTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF JANUARY 26,

2006, AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. In

the petition before the Court, Petitioner claims he has been denied access to reports surrounding the

investigation of a rules violation charge of sexual misconduct.

On January 26, 2006, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation which recommended

the petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. The Findings and Recommendation

erroneously stated that the petition should be dismissed “with leave to amend.” The recommendation

should not have included this language because an amended petition would serve no purpose in this

Case 1:05-cv-01628-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

case as no tenable claim for relief can be asserted. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9 Cir. th

1971). As discussed in the Findings and Recommendation, the instant petition raises only a state

evidentiary issue. Furthermore, Petitioner’s complaints surrounding the Rules Violation Report

should have been brought in his other pending habeas action which challenges the Rules Violation

Report. See Case No. 1:04-CV-6569 REC LJO HC. Accordingly, the Findings and Recommendation

is hereby CORRECTED to strike the language “with leave to amend.” 

On March 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time. Insofar as Petitioner

requests additional time to file an amended petition, his request is DENIED. Insofar as he requests

additional time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendation, his request is GRANTED.

Petitioner’s objections are due thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01628-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2