Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02267/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02267-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom L. Carey
Respondent
Donald Trahan
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

 On May 2, 2007, the court ordered respondents to file a response to petitioner’s habeas 1

application within sixty days, making the response due by July 2, 2007. Respondents did not file

their motion to dismiss until July 5, 2007. While it is not clear why the motion to dismiss was

filed late without a request for approval of late filing, petitioner has not objected to the court’s

consideration of it and the court is prepared to act on it. Respondents are reminded that they

must meet court deadlines or seek an extension of time. Failure to meet court deadlines in the

future may result in sanctions or disregarding of the late filing.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD TRAHAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-06-2267 WBS KJM P 

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the fact that he has been placed in

the “Substance Abuse Program” (SAP) at California State Prison Solano, but does not challenge

the length or fact of his incarceration. Pet. at 3. 

Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss in which they assert that petitioner 1

has failed to state a claim upon which this court can grant habeas relief. A petition for writ of

Case 2:06-cv-02267-WBS -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/24/08 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

2

habeas corpus can only be granted if the habeas petitioner shows that he is in custody in violation

of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Because petitioner fails to allege that his confinement or

the duration of his confinement violates federal law, this habeas action should be dismissed. 

However, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice to

petitioner’s commencing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In deciding whether to file a § 1983

action, petitioner may wish to consider the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), and that petitioner will be charged the $350.00 filing fee for a

§ 1983 action, which petitioner would be allowed to pay in installments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ July 5, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without

prejudice to petitioner’s filing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

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

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 24, 2008. 

1

trah2267.157

Case 2:06-cv-02267-WBS -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 2