(HC) Arista v. Mule Creek State Prison, No. 2:2013cv02655 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/16/14 ORDERING that the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations filed February 12, 2014; butthe action is dismissed and the case is closed. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(HC) Arista v. Mule Creek State Prison Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFRED ARISTA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-2655 DAD KJM P v. ORDER MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document entitled “Petition 18 for Review Motion to Renew Grounds for a Full Review on Complaint.” ECF No. 1. The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. The magistrate judge characterized it as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 21 and then on February 12, 2014, recommended the petition be denied because it did not challenge 22 the legality of petitioner’s conviction, a parole hearing or other proceeding leading to petitioner’s 23 incarceration. ECF No. 6. The magistrate judge advised petitioner he could file a civil rights 24 action, but warned that any such action must state a claim grounded in federal law. Id. at 2, n.1. 25 Plaintiff objects to the characterization of this action as one in habeas. ECF No. 7. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 27 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations, finding rather that plaintiff’s claims 2 appear to be civil rights claims. Nevertheless the court concludes the case must be dismissed. 3 In his initial pleading, plaintiff asks this court to review a decision by the 4 California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, in which that court affirmed a trial 5 court order granting summary judgment for defendants in plaintiff’s suit for negligence on the 6 ground that plaintiff had not timely submitted a government claim. Plaintiff also faults the 7 Amador County Superior Court for not responding to his request to file a late claim. As a general 8 rule, “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review the final determinations of a state court in 9 judicial proceedings.” Doe & Assocs. Law Office v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 10 2001) (citing Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 11 U.S. 462, 476 (1983)). 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations filed February 14 15 16 12, 2014; but 2. The action is dismissed and the case is closed. DATED: June 16, 2014. 17 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.