(HC) Cliff v. Matevousian, No. 1:2017cv00641 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Motion of Summary Judgment be DENIED re 8 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT ;referred to Judge Drozd; new case number is 1:17-c-00641-DAD-JLT (HC),signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/19/2017. Objections to F&R due 21-Day Deadline

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTRONE CLIFF, 12 13 Petitioner, 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE v. 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-00641-JLT (HC) ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 8] [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 17 18 On May 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 19 Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction and consequent loss of forty-one days of 20 good conduct time. 21 22 23 24 25 Following a preliminary review of the petition, on May 15, 2017, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response to the petition. On May 18, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant motion for summary judgment. DISCUSSION Summary judgment is a procedural device available for prompt and expeditious 26 disposition of controversy without trial when there is no dispute as to material fact. See Advisory 27 Committee Notes, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, 1963 Amendment (“The very mission of the summary 28 judgment procedure is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there 1 1 is a genuine need for trial.”). Thus, its purpose is to prevent the need for trial over facts that are 2 not legitimately in dispute. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. “[T]he writ 3 of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an independent civil 4 suit.” Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336 (1923); see also Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 5 U.S. 1, 14 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Modern habeas corpus procedure has the same 6 function as an ordinary appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1989); O’Neal v. 7 McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 442 (1995). In a habeas proceeding, the petitioner does not proceed to 8 “trial.” Since the passage of AEDPA, a habeas petitioner is rarely entitled to an evidentiary 9 hearing. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 203 (2011). Whatever beneficial role summary 10 judgment may have played in habeas proceedings prior to AEDPA is now virtually non-existent. 11 For all practical purposes, summary judgment is equivalent to the Court’s making a determination 12 on the merits of a habeas petition. Thus, motions for summary judgment are inappropriate in 13 federal habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Johnson v. Siebel, 2015 WL 9664958, at *1 n.2 (C.D.Cal. 14 Aug. 4, 2015); Mulder v. Baker, 2014 WL 4417748, at *1–*2 (D.Nev. Sept. 8, 2014); Gussner v. 15 Gonzalez, 2013 WL 458250, at *3–*5 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 5, 2013); Ordway v. Miller, 2013 WL 16 1151985, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 19, 2013). 17 18 ORDER The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case. 19 20 21 22 RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the motion for summary judgment be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 24 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 25 twenty-one days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party 26 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 27 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies 28 to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten court days after service of the Objections. 2 1 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 2 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 3 to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 19, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 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.