Spence v. People of The State of California
Filing
61
ORDER Granting 60 Petitioner's Request for an Extension of Time to File Objections to Findings and Recommendations; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Petitioner's Request for Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 07/14/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/18/2011.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDDIE C. SPENCE,
12
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:08-cv—00045-AWI-SKO-HC
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOCS. 60,
55)
DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY THE PETITION:
THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF
THIS ORDER
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC. 60)
DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF
THIS ORDER
23
24
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
25
forma pauperis with a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
26
matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
27
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.
28
the Court are 1) Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to
1
The
Pending before
1
file objections to findings and recommendations to deny the
2
petition which were filed on March 28, 2011; and 2) Petitioner’s
3
motion for injunctive relief in the form of an order compelling
4
the Respondent to return Petitioner’s property.
5
filed on July 1, 2011.
The motions were
6
I.
7
On March 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and
Order Granting the Request for an Extension of Time
8
recommendations to deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus on
9
the merits.
The claims included vindictive prosecution,
10
violation of the right to a speedy trial, and the sufficiency of
11
the evidence to establish that the victim experienced sustained
12
fear and that the threat was unconditional under the
13
circumstances.
14
mail on Petitioner on the same date and informed Petitioner that
15
objections were due within thirty days.
16
The findings and recommendations were served by
In April 2011, Petitioner was granted thirty additional days
17
to file objections because of serious illness with
18
hospitalization that commenced in December 2010 and resulted in
19
Petitioner’s return to custody to be housed in the prison
20
infirmary on March 25, 2011.
21
to walk; in April, he requested the return of his property but
22
did not receive it.
23
In March, Petitioner was learning
On June 2, 2011, Petitioner was again granted an additional
24
thirty days to file objections because he was released from the
25
prison infirmary on or about May 24, 2011, and was awaiting
26
placement back in the general population in order to be eligible
27
for access to the law library.
28
property despite numerous requests.
Petitioner had not received his
2
1
On July 1, 2011, Petitioner filed his third request for an
2
extension of time to file objections to the findings and
3
recommendations concerning the merits of his petition.
4
Petitioner stated that he had been served with a copy of the
5
findings and recommendations.
6
sought the return of his “legal matter” so that he could file
7
objections, and he filed numerous inmate appeals after he did not
8
receive his property.
9
property, he cannot respond to the moving pleadings.
10
Petitioner stated that he had
Petitioner asserts that without the
The Court notes that it is not pleadings to which Petitioner
11
seeks to respond, but rather the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
12
recommendations to deny the petition.
13
answer to the petition, and Petitioner filed a traverse.
14
the issues were fully briefed before the Magistrate Judge
15
prepared findings and recommendations.
16
not faced with preparing his case before this Court in the first
17
instance.
18
with respect to the recommended disposition in his case.
19
The Respondent filed an
Thus,
Therefore, Petitioner is
Instead, he has an opportunity to provide final input
Petitioner has not shown how his property is necessary for
20
filing objections to the findings and recommendations.
21
Petitioner offers only a conclusion that without “said property
22
petitioner can in no way respond” to the moving pleadings.
23
2.)
24
limitation of access to the law library or other condition of
25
confinement that would prevent filing objections.
26
(Mot.
It does not appear that Petitioner is suffering any
Therefore, it does not appear that Petitioner’s lack of
27
access to his property is good cause for an extension of time.
28
However, because of Petitioner’s history of illness, the Court
3
1
will grant to Petitioner one final extension of time to file
2
objections to the findings and recommendations.
3
forewarned that the Court will not grant further extensions
4
without an affirmative showing of good cause based on specific
5
facts.
6
Petitioner is
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an
7
extension of time is GRANTED, and Petitioner may file objections
8
to the findings and recommendations to deny the petition no later
9
than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this order.
10
II.
Findings and Recommendations Regarding Petitioner’s
Request for Injunctive Relief
11
Petitioner requests that the Court compel the warden and
12
custodial staff to return his property.
13
After reading the motion in its entirety, the Court
14
concludes that it is clear that Petitioner is challenging the
15
conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that
16
confinement.
17
It is established that relief by way of a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a prisoner who
19
shows that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or
20
treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
21
A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a
22
prisoner to challenge the legality or duration of his
23
confinement.
Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)
24
(quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973));
25
Advisory Committee Note to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section
26
2254 Cases (Habeas Rules), 1976 Adoption.
In contrast, a civil
27
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
28
4
1
for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement.
2
McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411
3
U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Note to
4
Habeas Rule 1, 1976 adoption.
5
In the motion for injunctive relief, Petitioner seeks to
6
challenge the conditions of his confinement and not the legality
7
or duration of his confinement.
8
concerning his property is cognizable in a civil rights action
9
rather than a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, Petitioner's claim
The Court
10
will, therefore, recommend that the motion for injunctive relief
11
be denied.
12
III.
13
In accordance with the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that
14
Recommendations
Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief be DENIED.
15
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the
16
United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant
17
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of
18
the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,
19
Eastern District of California.
20
being served with a copy, any party may file written objections
21
with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
22
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
23
and Recommendations.”
24
and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if
25
served by mail) after service of the objections.
26
then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
27
636 (b)(1)(C).
28
objections within the specified time may waive the right to
Within thirty (30) days after
Replies to the objections shall be served
The Court will
The parties are advised that failure to file
5
1
appeal the District Court’s order.
2
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
ie14hj
July 14, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?