-SKO (HC) Spence v. Yates, No. 1:2008cv00045 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 60 Petitioner's Request for an Extension of Time to File Objections to Findings and Recommendations; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Petitioner's Request for Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 07/14/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/18/2011.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-SKO (HC) Spence v. Yates Doc. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE C. SPENCE, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:08-cv—00045-AWI-SKO-HC ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOCS. 60, 55) DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY THE PETITION: THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC. 60) DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER 23 24 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 25 forma pauperis with a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 26 matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 28 the Court are 1) Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to The Pending before 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file objections to findings and recommendations to deny the 2 petition which were filed on March 28, 2011; and 2) Petitioner’s 3 motion for injunctive relief in the form of an order compelling 4 the Respondent to return Petitioner’s property. 5 filed on July 1, 2011. The motions were 6 I. 7 On March 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and Order Granting the Request for an Extension of Time 8 recommendations to deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus on 9 the merits. The claims included vindictive prosecution, 10 violation of the right to a speedy trial, and the sufficiency of 11 the evidence to establish that the victim experienced sustained 12 fear and that the threat was unconditional under the 13 circumstances. 14 mail on Petitioner on the same date and informed Petitioner that 15 objections were due within thirty days. 16 The findings and recommendations were served by In April 2011, Petitioner was granted thirty additional days 17 to file objections because of serious illness with 18 hospitalization that commenced in December 2010 and resulted in 19 Petitioner’s return to custody to be housed in the prison 20 infirmary on March 25, 2011. 21 to walk; in April, he requested the return of his property but 22 did not receive it. 23 In March, Petitioner was learning On June 2, 2011, Petitioner was again granted an additional 24 thirty days to file objections because he was released from the 25 prison infirmary on or about May 24, 2011, and was awaiting 26 placement back in the general population in order to be eligible 27 for access to the law library. 28 property despite numerous requests. Petitioner had not received his 2 1 On July 1, 2011, Petitioner filed his third request for an 2 extension of time to file objections to the findings and 3 recommendations concerning the merits of his petition. 4 Petitioner stated that he had been served with a copy of the 5 findings and recommendations. 6 sought the return of his “legal matter” so that he could file 7 objections, and he filed numerous inmate appeals after he did not 8 receive his property. 9 property, he cannot respond to the moving pleadings. 10 Petitioner stated that he had Petitioner asserts that without the The Court notes that it is not pleadings to which Petitioner 11 seeks to respond, but rather the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 12 recommendations to deny the petition. 13 answer to the petition, and Petitioner filed a traverse. 14 the issues were fully briefed before the Magistrate Judge 15 prepared findings and recommendations. 16 not faced with preparing his case before this Court in the first 17 instance. 18 with respect to the recommended disposition in his case. 19 The Respondent filed an Thus, Therefore, Petitioner is Instead, he has an opportunity to provide final input Petitioner has not shown how his property is necessary for 20 filing objections to the findings and recommendations. 21 Petitioner offers only a conclusion that without “said property 22 petitioner can in no way respond” to the moving pleadings. 23 2.) 24 limitation of access to the law library or other condition of 25 confinement that would prevent filing objections. 26 (Mot. It does not appear that Petitioner is suffering any Therefore, it does not appear that Petitioner’s lack of 27 access to his property is good cause for an extension of time. 28 However, because of Petitioner’s history of illness, the Court 3 1 will grant to Petitioner one final extension of time to file 2 objections to the findings and recommendations. 3 forewarned that the Court will not grant further extensions 4 without an affirmative showing of good cause based on specific 5 facts. 6 Petitioner is Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an 7 extension of time is GRANTED, and Petitioner may file objections 8 to the findings and recommendations to deny the petition no later 9 than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this order. 10 II. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Petitioner’s Request for Injunctive Relief 11 Petitioner requests that the Court compel the warden and 12 custodial staff to return his property. 13 After reading the motion in its entirety, the Court 14 concludes that it is clear that Petitioner is challenging the 15 conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that 16 confinement. 17 It is established that relief by way of a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a prisoner who 19 shows that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or 20 treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 21 A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 22 prisoner to challenge the legality or duration of his 23 confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) 24 (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); 25 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 26 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules), 1976 Adoption. In contrast, a civil 27 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method 28 4 1 for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 2 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 3 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Note to 4 Habeas Rule 1, 1976 adoption. 5 In the motion for injunctive relief, Petitioner seeks to 6 challenge the conditions of his confinement and not the legality 7 or duration of his confinement. 8 concerning his property is cognizable in a civil rights action 9 rather than a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, Petitioner's claim The Court 10 will, therefore, recommend that the motion for injunctive relief 11 be denied. 12 III. 13 In accordance with the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that 14 Recommendations Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief be DENIED. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 16 United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant 17 to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 18 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 19 Eastern District of California. 20 being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 21 with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 22 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 23 and Recommendations.” 24 and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if 25 served by mail) after service of the objections. 26 then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 27 636 (b)(1)(C). 28 objections within the specified time may waive the right to Within thirty (30) days after Replies to the objections shall be served The Court will The parties are advised that failure to file 5 1 appeal the District Court’s order. 2 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: ie14hj July 14, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
