(HC) Hatchett v. Clark, No. 2:2020cv02044 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/13/21 in part DENYING 14 Motion for Default Judgment; the 11 Motion to Dismiss remains pending; REFERRING matter to the Magistrate Judge to consider the arguments and claims in 22 petitioner's objections and to take whatever action the Magistrate Judge deems appropriate. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(HC) Hatchett v. Clark Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:20-cv-02044 KJM GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER KEN CLARK, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 20, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 21. The 23 magistrate judge found that petitioner was not “in custody” for purposes of § 2254 because he is 24 serving no sentence and no term of probation for the offense in question (an indecent exposure). 25 See F&Rs at 2–3. The magistrate judge also recommends denying petitioner’s motion for default 26 judgment. See id. at 4. 27 28 Petitioner objected to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 22. He is currently serving a term of incarceration for a different offense, and he seems to contend in his objections 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that his indecent exposure offense has resulted in harsher or lengthier conditions of confinement 2 or losses of certain rights or privileges. See, e.g., id. at 2 (describing assignments to 3 administrative segregation and losses of packages, phone calls, and property). Because the 4 Magistrate Judge had no opportunity to consider these arguments and claims, and because 5 respondent does not address them, the court declines to dismiss the petition for lack of 6 jurisdiction at this time. The court does, however, adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 7 to deny the motion for default judgment for the reasons in the findings and recommendations. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 20, 2021, are adopted in part as 10 described above; 11 2. Petitioner’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 14) is denied; 12 3. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) remains pending; and 13 4. This matter is referred again to the Magistrate Judge to consider the arguments and 14 claims in petitioner’s objections (ECF No. 22) and to take whatever action the Magistrate Judge 15 deems appropriate. 16 DATED: December 13, 2021. 17 18 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.