(HC) Williams v. Unknown, No. 2:2006cv02302 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2006)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed signed by Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/19/06. Objections due within 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Williams v. Unknown Doc. 4 Case 2:06-cv-02302-LKK-CMK Document 4 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DELBERT WILLIAMS, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-06-2302 LKK CMK P vs. Unknown,1 14 Respondent. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on October 18, 2006.2 16 17 A reading of the petition reveals that petitioner claims that the negligence of prison doctors 18 endangered his life when they failed to give him proper cardiac care. (Pet. ¶ 6.) Petitioner 19 alleges that the grounds for relief are “malpractice by inept” physicians affiliated with the 20 Department of Corrections. (Pet. ¶ 6.) Several medical exhibits are attached to the petition. 21 To the extent petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, federal 22 habeas relief is not available. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (habeas corpus 23 petition is proper method to challenge legality or duration of confinement, but civil rights action 24 is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement). Accordingly, it is appropriate to 25 1 26 Petitioner has failed to name a respondent in his habeas application. He lists the respondents as “etc. and All.” 2 Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by separate order. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-02302-LKK-CMK Document 4 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 dismiss this action without issuing an order to show cause. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harris v. Nelson, 2 394 U.S. 286, 29899 (1969). 3 4 5 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 6 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 8 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 10 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 October 19, 2006 13 14 /s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON Craig M. Kellison UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
