(HC) Craig v. County of El Dorado Sheriff's Department, No. 2:2019cv00061 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/1/2019 GRANTING 6 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDERING Clerk of Court to assign a district court judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be summarily dismissed and this case be closed. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:19-cv-0061 CKD P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND COUNTY OF EL DORADO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 17 Petitioner, an El Dorado County Jail pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to 19 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the request to proceed 20 in forma pauperis reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the 21 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 23 petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review. 25 Petitioner complains about conditions of confinement at the El Dorado County Jail and 26 asserts he was subject to a false arrest. Petitioner’s conditions of confinement claims are not 27 proper because the court can only entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “on the ground 28 that he is in custody in violation of [federal law].” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Any claims concerning 1 1 conditions of confinement should be brought in an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for 2 violation of civil rights. 3 As for the false arrest claim, there are several problems: petitioner has not shown that he 4 has exhausted state court remedies with respect to his claim,1 petitioner has not shown that there 5 was not probable cause for his arrest,2 and challenges to ongoing criminal proceedings are 6 generally barred by the doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). For these reasons, the court will recommend that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas 7 8 corpus be summarily dismissed. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted; and 11 2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case. 12 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 14 2. This case be closed. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 18 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 19 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections, petitioner may address whether a 20 certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 21 case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 22 deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as 23 here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should 24 issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 25 district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 26 1 27 The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 28 2 Under the Fourth Amendment, any arrest must be supported by probable cause. 2 1 debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 2 v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 3 (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 4 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 Dated: April 1, 2019 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 crai0061.114 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.