Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00750-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno Federal Court House
Respondent
Adrian Jackson
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

ADRIAN JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

FRESNO FEDERAL COURT HOUSE,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00750-DAD-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

Petitioner is a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

I.

DISCUSSION

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his detention in the Kern County jail after his 

arrest pursuant to an indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Georgia. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleges that his due process rights were violated because he did 

not receive a preliminary hearing within fourteen days after his initial appearance. (Id. at 6).1

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person “in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 22542 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas 

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 

by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.).

Case 1:16-cv-00750-DAD-SAB Document 7 Filed 10/04/16 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

petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a 

response if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, Petitioner was indicted and is not entitled to a 

preliminary hearing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(a)(2). Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to allege 

facts that state a cognizable claim for a due process violation, and dismissal is warranted.

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be DISMISSED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned District Judge

will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00750-DAD-SAB Document 7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 2