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
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?