Randolph A. Jackson v. I. Hetmer, No. 2:2019cv07830 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 by Judge John A. Kronstadt. THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (es)

Download PDF
Randolph A. Jackson v. I. Hetmer Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDOLPH A. JACKSON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 v. I. HETMER, Warden, Case No. 2:19-cv-07830-JAK (AFM) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on 18 file and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, 19 the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which 20 objections have been made. 21 Petitioner’s objections are overruled. With the exception of the matters 22 addressed below, Petitioner’s objections do not warrant discussion because they are 23 addressed appropriately in the Report. 24 Petitioner complains that the records related to his 1981 conviction have been 25 destroyed. (ECF No. 19 at 1-3.) To the extent that Petitioner seeks to assert a claim 26 related to the destruction of records, it is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus 27 action. A habeas corpus action necessarily presents a challenge to either a conviction 28 or a sentence imposed by a state court judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Preiser v. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). When success on a claim “would not 2 necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement,” that claim 3 does not fall within the “core of habeas corpus” and is not properly raised in a habeas 4 corpus petition. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). 5 Because Petitioner’s complaint regarding the destruction of records, if successful, 6 would not affect the validity or length of his confinement, it is not properly raised in 7 his habeas corpus petition. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934-935. 8 9 THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 10 11 DATED: 12 13 14 Dated: March 24, 2020 _________________________________ John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.