(HC) Giraldes v. Baughman, No. 2:2017cv02549 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/1/18 RECOMMENDING that 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez.Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Coll, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Giraldes v. Baughman Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY GIRALDES, JR., 12 13 14 No. 2:17-CV-2549-JAM-DMC-P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS D. BAUGHMAN, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 17 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a 19 writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 20 21 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 22 annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it 23 is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. While petitioner states he is in 24 custody pursuant to a March 1993 conviction for second degree murder, petitioner states that he is 25 challenging “[j]ail or prison conditions,” not his conviction. Doc. 1, p. 2. Petitioner also states he 26 is seeking enforcement of settlement agreements reached in two separate civil rights actions. See 27 id. at 3. Petitioner does not allege any claims related to the 1993 conviction or any other 28 conviction. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 To state a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim, the petitioner must assert he is 2 “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2254(a). To satisfy this requirement, the petitioner must allege a nexus between his claims and 4 the unlawful nature of the custody. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978-80 (9th Cir. 2010). In 5 this case, petitioner cannot allege such a nexus because his claims related to enforcement of 6 settlement agreement reached in civil rights actions do not relate to his custody, let alone suggest 7 the unlawful nature of such custody. 8 9 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be summarily dismissed. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 12 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 14 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 15 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 18 Dated: November 1, 2018 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
