Edwards v. Haws

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/8/10 ORDERING that w/in 30 days, ptnr to SHOW CAUSE why his claims should not be dismissed as not cognizable under § 2254. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.(Yin, K)

(HC) Edwards v. Haws

Doc. 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. F.B. HAWS, Warden, Respondent. / Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He makes the required showing. Therefore, the request is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Currently pending before the court is petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. A district court must entertain a habeas petition "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Petitioner argues that several rules violation reports that he received while incarcerated were imposed in violation of his due process rights. But petitioner has not alleged that the rules violation report extended the length of his sentence, for example, through the loss of time credits. ////
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS, Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-1124 WBS EFB P

ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Unless the incident in question affected the duration of his sentence, petitioner is not entitled to relief under § 2254. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall show cause why his claims should not be dismissed as not cognizable under § 2254. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Dated: October 8, 2010.

2