Geovany Velasquez v. The Secretary of the California Department of Cor.

Filing 30

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Manuel L. Real for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 22 . IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and Judgment be entered dismissing this action. (See Order for details) (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
GEOVANY VELASQUEZ,

10
Petitioner,

11
v.

12
13

SEC’Y OF THE CAL. DEP’T OF
CORRS.,

14

Respondent.

15

) Case No. CV 15-5881-R (JPR)
)
)
) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
)
)
)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the

16 Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S.
17 Magistrate Judge. On January 30, 2017, Petitioner filed
18 objections to the R. & R., stating that he had not been able to
19 visit the law library but was filing his objections so as not to
20 miss the deadline for doing so. But shortly before the Court
21 received the objections it had granted Petitioner’s request for
22 an extension, giving him until March 20 to file objections.
23 Petitioner has not filed any additional objections within that
24 time, although he did lodge with the Court a copy of his
25 Comprehensive Risk Assessment for the Board of Parole Hearings,
26 which the Court has read and considered.
27
As the Magistrate Judge explained in the R. & R.,
28 Petitioner’s habeas claims are foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit’s
recent en banc decision in Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th

1 Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 645 (2017).
2 Nothing in Petitioner’s objections or the risk assessment changes
3 the fact that under Nettles, his claims sound, if at all, in
4 civil rights, not habeas.

For the reasons stated in the R. & R.

5 the Court declines to construe the Petition as a civil-rights
6 lawsuit, but nothing prevents Petitioner from filing a new
7 lawsuit, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, raising his claims.

The Clerk

8 is directed to provide Petitioner with a copy of the Court’s pro
9 se civil-rights complaint packet.
10

Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to

11 which objections were filed, the Court accepts the findings and
12 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED

13 that the Petition is denied and Judgment be entered dismissing
14 this action.
15
16 DATED: March 24, 2017
17

MANUEL L. REAL
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2