(HC) Johnson v. Board of Prison Terms et al, No. 2:2005cv00745 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2005)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Peter A. Nowinski on 04/26/05 recommending that the petition be dismissed. Referred back to Judge England Jr. (Cannarozzi, N)

Download PDF
(HC) Johnson v. Board of Prison Terms et al Case 2:05-cv-00745-MCE-PAN Doc. 4 Document 4 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Eastern District of California 10 11 12 Charles E. Johnson, 13 14 15 Petitioner, vs. Findings and Recommendations Board of Prison Terms, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 No. Civ. S 05-0745 MCE PAN P -oOoPetitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus challenging 19 the Board of Prison Terms’ revocation of his administrative 20 parole. 21 submitted at the hearing and the Board violated state law by 22 extending his maximum parole term from three to four years. 23 He claims the revocation was not supported by evidence The petitioner fails to cite federal constitutional law or 24 raise a federal claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) 25 (district court to entertain habeas petition only where 26 petitioner alleges he is in custody in violation of the Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-00745-MCE-PAN Document 4 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 2 of 2 1 Constitution or laws of the United States); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2 2241(c)(3). Petitioner also fails to name his custodian as 3 respondent. See Rule 2, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 4 the United States District Courts (Federal Habeas Rules) 5 (petitioner currently in custody under a state-court judgment 6 must name as respondent the state officer who has his custody). 7 Accordingly, the court hereby recommends the petition be 8 dismissed. 9 it plainly appears from the petition that petitioner is not 10 Federal Habeas Rule 4 (court must dismiss petition if entitled to relief). 11 Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these 12 findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States 13 District Judge assigned to this case. 14 filed within 20 days of service of these findings and 15 recommendations. 16 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 17 judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and 18 recommendations in whole or in part. 19 Dated: Written objections may be The document should be captioned “Objections to The district April 26, 2005. 20 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski PETER A. NOWINSKI Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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.