Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01117/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01117-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Maciel
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. MACIEL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1117 REC LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #5]

ORDER DISMISSING GROUND FOUR

FROM PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 5, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Grounds One and Four be DISMISSED from the petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed on September 1, 2005. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

the order. 

On November 29, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 12/28/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Petitioner does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Ground Four be dismissed;

however, he contends that Ground One raises a cognizable claim and should not be dismissed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis;

however, in light of the points raised in Petitioner’s objections, the Findings and Recommendations

will be adopted in part. 

In Ground One of his petition, Petitioner complains that prison authorities have wrongfully

and maliciously altered his medical status. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, the claim as set

forth is not cognizable in a federal habeas action because it does not challenge the legality of his

conviction or the duration of his sentence. In his objections, however, Petitioner expounds on this

ground for relief by claiming that the alteration of his medical status has resulted in Petitioner no

longer being able to earn a reduction in his sentence. Petitioner claims his change in medical status

has caused him to be removed from the “work/privilege group,” thereby depriving him of the

opportunity to earn credit against his sentence. Couched in these terms, the claim no longer centers

only on a condition of Petitioner’s confinement but now implicates a change in the duration of his

sentence. Such a claim might be cognizable in a federal habeas action. See Cochran v. Buss, 381

F.3d 637 (7 Cir.2004); Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661 (7 Cir.2003). th th

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 4, 2005, is ADOPTED IN PART;

2. Ground Four is DISMISSED from the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and

3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 2