Parks v. San Joaquin County Superior Court et al
Filing
4
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/6/2018 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GERALD PARKS,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:18-cv-1589 DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
SAN JOAQUIN SUPERIOR COURT, et
al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that his speedy trial rights are being violated by defendants. He
20
seeks “immediate release” and an order requiring the state court to start his trial immediately.
21
(See Compl. (ECF No. 1).) Plaintiff’s claims are not appropriately raised in a proceeding under §
22
1983. Habeas corpus is the sole remedy for relief affecting the duration of confinement. See
23
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,
24
81-82 (2005)).
25
The undersigned notes that plaintiff recently attempted to raise these same claims in a
26
habeas corpus proceeding in this court. See Parks v. San Joaquin Cty. Sup. Ct., No. 2:18-cv-0604
27
WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.). The judge found plaintiff had failed to exhaust his state court remedies
28
before bringing that action. Id. (ECF Nos. 5, 8). On May 22, 2018, Judge Shubb dismissed that
1
1
case. Nine days later, plaintiff filed the present action. It is clear both from the short passage of
2
time, and from the face of plaintiff’s complaint herein, that he has not yet exhausted his claims in
3
the state courts. He must do so before he attempts to raise them, through a habeas corpus petition,
4
again in this court.
5
6
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district
judge to this case; and
7
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.
8
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
9
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
10
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
11
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
12
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
13
time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
14
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15
Dated: June 6, 2018
16
17
18
19
20
21
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/park1589.scrn fr
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?