Lewis v. Woodford
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/5/18 ADOPTING 193 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Petitioner is directed to file a motion to amend the petition, through counsel, if there are new bases on which he wishes to challenge his conviction or sentence. (Kaminski, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MILTON OTIS LEWIS,
Petitioner is a state death row prisoner proceeding through counsel in Case No. 2:02-cv-
00013, and without counsel in Case No. 2:17-cv-01112. The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 21, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations in the
above-captioned cases, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties
that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.
(ECF No. 8.) Petitioner, through counsel, filed no objections to the findings and
recommendations in Case No. 2:02-cv-00013. Petitioner proceeding pro se, however, has filed
objections to the findings and recommendations in Case No. 2:17-cv-01112.
It appears from the objections that Petitioner seeks to use this federal habeas corpus
petition to challenge a 2016 state court guardianship determination as well as his 1988 conviction
and sentence. He claims the two are “related.” (ECF No. 9 at 2.) This relationship and the
federal basis of Petitioner’s challenge to the guardianship determination are both exceedingly
unclear. As the magistrate judge noted, if Petitioner has additional claims relating to his
conviction and/or sentence, he must follow the appropriate process for amending his existing
habeas petition (Case No. 2:02-cv-0013). If Petitioner has unrelated claims stemming from the
guardianship determination, he must file them in a separate action that does not also contain
claims challenging his conviction and sentence.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 21, 2017, are adopted in full;
2. The petition filed as Case No. 2:17-cv-1112 is dismissed;
3. Petitioner is directed to file a motion to amend the petition, through counsel, in the
earlier action, 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-EFB, if there are new bases on which he wishes to
challenge his conviction or sentence;
4. The Clerk is directed to close Case No. 2:17-cv-01112; and
5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated: March 5, 2018
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?