-CKD (HC) Ross v. Hill, No. 2:2011cv02551 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/30/11: Ordering that petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case. Recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed and this case be closed. F&R referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections to F&R due within twentyone days. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
-CKD (HC) Ross v. Hill Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALEX ROSS, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. R. HILL, ORDER AND Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 No. CIV-S-11-2551 CKD P Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 Examination of petitioner’s in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to 19 afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 20 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the court must conduct a 22 preliminary review of § 2254 habeas petitions and dismiss any petition where it plainly appears 23 that petitioner is not entitled to relief in this court. 24 Petitioner challenges orders of restitution and fines which were imposed along 25 with his sentence of imprisonment. The court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus 26 by a state prisoner only on the ground that the prisoner is in custody in violation of federal law. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Because petitioner’s challenge to an order of restitution and fines does not 2 amount to a challenge to custody, his challenge may not be brought in a § 2254 action. Bailey v. 3 Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980-82 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the court will recommend that this action 4 be dismissed. 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and 7 2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case. 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed; and 10 2. This case be closed. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 13 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file 14 objections. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 15 and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of 16 appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 17 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a 18 certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Petitioner is 19 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 20 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: September 30, 2011 22 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 1 ross2551.114 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.