(HC) Amadeo v. Doe et al, No. 1:2009cv01922 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending That the Instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed and the Clerk of the Court be Directed to Terminate This Action in its Entirety, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/9/2009. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger; Objections to F&R due by 12/14/2009. (Sondheim, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Amadeo v. Doe et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAYMOND AMADEO, 10 1:09-cv-01922-OWW-DLB (HC) Petitioner, 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 12 [Doc. 1] JOHN DOE, et.al., 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is civilly detained at Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually 16 Violent Predator Act and is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. Preliminary Review of Petition 20 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part: 21 If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. 22 23 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for 24 writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s 25 motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 26 II. Failure to State Cognizable Claim 27 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner 2 unless he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 3 Petitioner’s claims arise under California law. First, he claims that he was not provided 4 notice of the screening process under California Welfare and Institution Code section 6601, 5 subsection (b). Second, he claims that his Equal Protection rights were violated by the denial of 6 the right to appeal through the administrative appellate process. Such claims involve questions of 7 purely state law and are not cognizable via section 2254. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 8 (1991) (“We have stated many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of 9 state.’”), quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). “[T]he availability of a claim under 10 state law does not of itself establish that a claim was available under the United States 11 Constitution.” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 239 (1990), quoting, Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 12 401, 409 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, the petition fails to state a cognizable 13 federal claim and must be dismissed. 14 RECOMMENDATION 15 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED/RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. The instant petition for writ of habeas be DISMISSED; and, 17 2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to terminate this action in its entirety. 18 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 19 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 20 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 21 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 2 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and 3 filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 4 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 5 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 6 to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a November 9, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
