(HC)Ali-Akbar v. Greg Bracket, No. 2:2012cv02414 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/19/2012 ORDERING that petitioner's 9 request to proceed IFP is GRANTED; and RECOMMENDING that the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to habeas corpus relief. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)Ali-Akbar v. Greg Bracket Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HAKIM ALI-AKBAR, aka FREDERICK JONES, 11 Petitioner, No. 2:12-cv-2414 JAM KJN P 12 vs. 13 GREG BRACKET, ORDER AND 14 Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 26, 2012, the court ordered 19 petitioner to file a properly completed in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required filing fee. 20 On November 1, 2012, petitioner filed a completed request to proceed in forma pauperis, and 21 certified trust account statement. 22 23 24 Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a 25 preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. A petition must be dismissed “[i]f 26 it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th 2 Cir. 1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner 3 can show that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 4 petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenges the fact or 5 duration of a petitioner’s conviction. Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner who 6 is challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and seeking immediate or speedier release. 7 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973). By contrast, a civil rights action brought 8 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenges the conditions of the prisoner’s confinement. In the instant petition, petitioner does not challenge the fact of his conviction or 9 10 the duration of his sentence. Rather, petitioner challenges a state court order finding plaintiff to 11 be a vexatious litigant, thereby limiting plaintiff’s access to state court. This allegation does not 12 challenge the fact or duration of petitioner’s conviction. Therefore, petitioner’s claim is not 13 appropriately brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner is granted leave to proceed 14 15 in forma pauperis; and IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is be 16 17 dismissed because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to habeas 18 corpus relief. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 22 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 23 Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address whether a 24 certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. A certificate of 25 appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Petitioner is advised 2 1 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: November 19, 2012 4 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 akba2414.156 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
