Cogswell v. Cate
Filing
5
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/04/13 ordering that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is dismissed and the clerk is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
HENRY IVAN COGSWELL,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Petitioner,
No. 2:12-cv-2807 CKD P
vs.
MATTHEW CATE,
Respondent.
ORDER
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint challenging his
17
conditions of confinement at his current and former places of incarceration on a form for a
18
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee and consented to
19
jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge.
20
Petitioner fails to state a cognizable habeas corpus claim. Petitioner is clearly
21
attempting to challenge his conditions of confinement, and, in particular, the services provided to
22
ADA inmates at High Desert State Prison and some of his former places of incarceration.
23
Petitioner acknowledges that he has filed a complaint challenging his conditions of confinement
24
on a habeas corpus form, but asks the court to construe his filing as a claim brought under the
25
Americans with Disabilities Act. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.) The court will not do so. If petitioner
26
wishes to file a complaint challenging his conditions of confinement, he must file it on the proper
1
1
form and pay the appropriate filing fee, which is $350.00. Accordingly, the petition will be
2
dismissed.
3
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application
4
for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed and the clerk is directed to close this case.
5
Dated: March 4, 2013
6
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
8
10
cogs2807.dismiss
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?