Dustin v. Pffeiffer et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Petitioner's 20 Motion for Copies, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/23/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

12

Petitioner,

13

Case No. 1:16-cv-01708-DAD-SAB-HC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR COPIES

v.
(ECF No. 20)

14
15

PFFEIFFER,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner currently proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding (Log No.
19 ASU1-15-08-001).
20

On January 11, 2017, the Court found Petitioner had failed to establish that the Court has

21 habeas jurisdiction over this matter under Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en
22 banc), and granted Petitioner leave to assert his claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
23 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 14). On February 22, 2017, the Court granted Petitioner a thirty-day
24 extension of time to file a civil rights complaint that names the proper defendants and seeks the
25 appropriate relief. (ECF No. 19).
26

On February 22, 2017, the Court received the instant motion wherein Petitioner requests

27 “one copy of the above-named/numbered case” because his cell was “ransacked” and “all his
28 boxes . . . were confiscated.” (ECF No. 20). Petitioner states that “he’d intended to exhaust his

1

1 state remedy as the Court ordered but is unable to without a copy . . .” (Id.). As set forth above,
2 in the instant case, the Court has found that Petitioner’s claims do not fall within habeas corpus
3 and ordered Petitioner to file a civil rights complaint pursuant to § 1983 instead. It is unclear to
4 the Court what specific documents Petitioner is referring to when he requests “one copy of the
5 above-named/numbered case.” Further, Petitioner’s purported reason for the copies—“to exhaust
6 his state remedy as the Court ordered”—has not been ordered by the Court in this matter.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for copies (ECF No. 20) WITHOUT

7

8 PREJUDICE to filing a new request setting forth which specific documents Petitioner requires
9 and why.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

February 23, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2