(HC) Brownlee v. McDonald, No. 2:2009cv02521 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/10/10 ORDERING that all outstanding motions are DENIED; recommending that this action be dismissed re 14 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Terrence Brownlee. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
(HC) Brownlee v. McDonald Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TERRENCE BROWNLEE, Petitioner, 11 12 13 No. CIV-S-09-2521 LKK KJM P vs. MIKE MCDONALD, Respondent. 14 ORDER / 15 Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ 16 17 of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The operative petition was filed October 26, 2009. In 18 a § 2254 action, relief is appropriate only if the petitioner shows he is in state custody in 19 violation of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The only claim petitioner makes that even 20 suggests he is in custody in violation of federal law is that petitioner is being held longer than he 21 agreed to be in his plea agreement.1 A review of court records reveals this claim is presented in 22 the operative habeas petition in case number CIV-S-10-0925 LKK KJM P, filed in this court on 23 24 25 26 1 Petitioner also appears to assert that he is entitled to relief based on violations of 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 and 552a; he also cites a § 552c, although the court is not able to locate such a section. See Am. Pet. at 4. Sections 552 and 552a govern public access to information maintained by federal agencies, and do not appear applicable to petitioner’s case. Even if they were applicable, judicial review of claims that the statutes have been violated is limited as provided by statute, and such claims do not appear to be cognizable in a habeas action. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Dockets.Justia.com 1 July 17, 2009. Because there is no need to consider the claim in both actions, the court will 2 recommend that this action be dismissed as duplicative. 3 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all outstanding motions are denied; and 5 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 8 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: November 10, 2010. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 brow0925.157