(HC) Harrison v. CDCR, et al.,, No. 2:2010cv00547 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/19/2010 RECOMMENDING that ptnr's application for writ of hc be dismissed; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Harrison v. CDCR, et al., Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARL F. HARRISON, Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 13 14 No. CIV S-10-0547 FCD KJM P DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Respondent. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner complains about destruction of some of 19 his legal property. A petition for writ of habeas corpus can only be granted upon a finding that 20 the habeas petitioner is being held in custody in violation of the Constitution or some other 21 federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Petitioner fails to allege that he is in custody in violation 22 of federal law. Therefore, this action must be dismissed. It may be that petitioner has grounds to 23 pursue an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If petitioner elects to file a 24 § 1983 action, he will be required to pay the $350 filing fee, in installments at least. 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed; and 3 2. This case be closed. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 6 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 8 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 9 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 10 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: November 19, 2010. 12 13 14 1 harr0547.dis(7.12.10) 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.
