Roark v. The Attorney General of California
Filing
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/14/16 RECOMMENDING that respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10 ) be granted; Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1 ) be dismissed; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT ROARK,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-0721 KJM CKD P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RON RACKLEY,1
15
Respondent.
16
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
17
18
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s claims concern a revocation of parole occurring in
19
2011, and the terms imposed following the revocation. The term of parole at issue ended October
20
16, 2011. ECF No. 10-3 at 2, 4. Petitioner is currently serving an 8 year prison sentence entered
21
upon a September 25, 2014 conviction for brining drugs into jail. Id. at 11-12. Respondent has
22
filed a motion asking that petitioner’s habeas petition be dismissed.
The court can “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in
23
24
custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in
25
violation of [federal law].” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner fails to make any allegation suggesting,
26
27
28
1
Mr. Ron Rackley, the warden at petitioner’s place of incarceration, is hereby substituted for the
Attorney General of California as the respondent in this matter. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing
Section 2255 Cases.
1
1
and nothing in the record before the court suggests, that the parole revocation at issue, or terms
2
entered thereon, resulted in petitioner’s present incarceration or contributed in any way to the
3
length of his current sentence. Therefore, the court cannot “entertain” petitioner’s § 2254
4
petition.
In light of the foregoing, the court need not address respondent’s argument that
5
6
petitioner’s claims are time-barred.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
8
1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) be granted;
9
2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed; and
10
3. This case be closed.
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
13
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
14
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
15
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner
16
may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of
17
the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district
18
court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
19
applicant). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after
20
service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
21
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
22
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
23
Dated: July 14, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
1
roar0721.157
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
27
28
3
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?