(HC) Simpson v. Deboo, No. 2:2006cv02763 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 2/2/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 24 are ADOPTED IN FULL; Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28:2241 is DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Simpson v. Deboo Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WAYNE SIMPSON, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 15 No. CIV S-06-2763 WBS KJM P vs. RICHARD B. IVES, Respondent. ORDER / 16 Petitioner, a United States prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a 17 writ of habeas corpus based on 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On December 8, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 22 Respondent has not filed objections. Although petitioner has not filed anything specifically 23 titled “Objections,” on December 18, 2009, he filed a document entitled “Motion To Vacate The 24 Unconstitutional Portion of Sentence.” There is nothing in this document that reasonably calls 25 into question anything in the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations. Therefore, to the 26 extent petitioner’s “Motion . . .” is intended to constitute objections to the findings and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommendations, they are not well taken. Furthermore, the court has reviewed the file and 2 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 3 judge’s analysis. 4 To the extent petitioner’s “Motion . . .” may be construed as an amended petition 5 for writ of habeas corpus, the court does not consider the petition because petitioner was not 6 given leave to amend. Even if petitioner were granted leave to amend, there is nothing in the 7 motion suggesting petitioner would be entitled to habeas relief. As noted in the findings and 8 recommendations, petitioner’s claims concern the fact that he was ordered to serve a term of 9 mandatory supervised relief. December 8, 2009 Findings and Recommendations at 1:20-2:3. In 10 his most recent pleading he continues to attack the supervised relief term included as a part of his 11 sentence. An action based on 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not the proper action, and this is not the 12 proper forum, for petitioner’s claims. December 8, 2009 Findings and Recommendations at 2:4- 13 10. 14 Therefore, in accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 8, 2009 are adopted in full; 16 and 17 2. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is 18 denied. 19 DATED: February 2, 2010 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.
