(HC)Smith v. Warden, Mule Creek State Prison, No. 2:2014cv02747 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/26/2015 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed ; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RODNEY SMITH, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS WARDEN, MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, Respondent. 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 16 17 No. 2:14-cv-2747 JAM CKD P corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. In his petition, petitioner asserts he has been denied copies of the transcript of his 18 19 sentencing proceedings as well as a copy of the abstract of judgment. While it is not entirely 20 clear, it appears petitioner wants this court to order a California court to make the documents 21 petitioner seeks available to him. 22 A federal court can entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by a state 23 prisoner only when the state prisoner alleges he is in custody in violation of federal law. 28 24 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Because petitioner’s claim does not concern whether he is in custody in 25 violation of federal law, his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed; and 3 2. This case be closed. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 7 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 Dated: January 26, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 smit2747.dis 19 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.