Cliff v. Matevousian

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Motion of Summary Judgment be DENIED re 8 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT ;referred to Judge Drozd; new case number is 1:17-c-00641-DAD-JLT (HC),signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/19/2017. Objections to F&R due 21-Day Deadline

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTRONE CLIFF,

12
13

Petitioner,

16

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

v.

14
15

No. 1:17-cv-00641-JLT (HC)

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
Respondent.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 8]
[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE]

17
18

On May 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

19

Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction and consequent loss of forty-one days of

20

good conduct time.

21
22
23
24
25

Following a preliminary review of the petition, on May 15, 2017, the Court issued an
order directing Respondent to file a response to the petition.
On May 18, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is a procedural device available for prompt and expeditious

26

disposition of controversy without trial when there is no dispute as to material fact. See Advisory

27

Committee Notes, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, 1963 Amendment (“The very mission of the summary

28

judgment procedure is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there
1

1

is a genuine need for trial.”). Thus, its purpose is to prevent the need for trial over facts that are

2

not legitimately in dispute. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. “[T]he writ

3

of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an independent civil

4

suit.” Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336 (1923); see also Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504

5

U.S. 1, 14 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Modern habeas corpus procedure has the same

6

function as an ordinary appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1989); O’Neal v.

7

McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 442 (1995). In a habeas proceeding, the petitioner does not proceed to

8

“trial.” Since the passage of AEDPA, a habeas petitioner is rarely entitled to an evidentiary

9

hearing. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 203 (2011). Whatever beneficial role summary

10

judgment may have played in habeas proceedings prior to AEDPA is now virtually non-existent.

11

For all practical purposes, summary judgment is equivalent to the Court’s making a determination

12

on the merits of a habeas petition. Thus, motions for summary judgment are inappropriate in

13

federal habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Johnson v. Siebel, 2015 WL 9664958, at *1 n.2 (C.D.Cal.

14

Aug. 4, 2015); Mulder v. Baker, 2014 WL 4417748, at *1–*2 (D.Nev. Sept. 8, 2014); Gussner v.

15

Gonzalez, 2013 WL 458250, at *3–*5 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 5, 2013); Ordway v. Miller, 2013 WL

16

1151985, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 19, 2013).

17
18

ORDER
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case.

19
20
21
22

RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the motion for summary
judgment be DENIED.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

23

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

24

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

25

twenty-one days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party

26

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

27

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies

28

to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten court days after service of the Objections.
2

1

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

2

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

3

to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 19, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3