(HC) Jones v. Sullivan

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations and CONVERTING Petition to a Civil Rights Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/9/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. JONES,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:19-cv-00477-DAD-JDP

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONVERTING
PETITION TO A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION

WARDEN,
Respondent.

(Doc. No. 5)

16
17
18

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

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On April 17, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show cause as to why

22

the case should not be summarily dismissed. (Doc. No. 2.) In it, the magistrate judge noted that

23

although the petition was labeled as a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254, it did not challenge

24

petitioner’s underlying criminal conviction or sentence. Instead, petitioner alleged in his writ that

25

his confinement in a cell with another inmate amounted to deliberate indifference. Recognizing

26

that the petitioner may instead be attempting to state a claim for violation of his civil rights under

27

42 U.S.C. § 1983, the magistrate judge permitted petitioner to file a complaint under § 1983. (Id.

28

at 3.) Petitioner did so on June 17, 2019. (Doc. No. 3.) Accordingly, on July 15, 2019, the
1

1

assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that petitioner’s

2

habeas petition be converted to a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 5.) The

3

findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections

4

were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 2–3.) To date, no objections to the

5

findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

7

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

8

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

9
10

Accordingly,
1.

11
12

adopted in full;
2.

13
14

17
18

The clerk is directed to convert this case into a civil rights action brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under the complaint filed on June 17, 2019 (Doc. No. 3); and

3.

15
16

The findings and recommendations issued on July 15, 2019 (Doc. No. 5) are

The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 9, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2