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)

Download PDF
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?