(HC) Drake v Felker, et al, No. 2:2007cv00577 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/5/07 ORDERING that petitioner's appl to proceed IFP is GRANTED; and RECOMMENDING that petitioner's petition for writ of hc be DISMISSED. Case referred to Judge Levi. Within 20 days after being served with these findings, petitioner may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Drake v Felker, et al Doc. 4 Case 2:07-cv-00577-RRB-KJM Document 4 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEAN C. DRAKE, Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-07-0577 DFL KJM P FELKER, et al., Respondents. 14 ORDER AND / 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 16 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable 19 20 to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 21 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In his petition, petitioner challenges prison disciplinary proceedings which 22 23 resulted in a change in petitioner’s conditions of confinement. This is not a valid habeas 24 challenge. A petition for writ of habeas corpus can be entertained by this court only if petitioner 25 alleges he is actually in custody in violation of his Constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00577-RRB-KJM Document 4 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 Petitioner makes no such allegation here. Therefore, the court will recommend that this action 2 be dismissed.1 3 4 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and 5 6 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 8 District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file 10 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Findings 11 and Recommendations." Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 13 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: April 5, 2007. 15 16 17 1 drak0577.frs 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 It appears petitioner might be able to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before deciding whether to file a § 1983 action, petitioner should review Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Also, petitioner is advised that if he files a § 1983 action he will be required to pay the $350 filing fee at least on an installment basis. 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.
