(HC) Craig v. D'Agostini, et al.,
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 6/2/2021 ORDERING Clerk to assign a district judge to rule on these findings and recommendations and RECOMMENDING 3 Motion to Convert be granted and if this r ecommendation is adopted, the Clerk of Court should be ordered to send petitioner a section 1983 complaint form and the appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis and Petitioner should be given 60 days to file his complaint and either pay the filing fee or submit a completed IFP application and 5 Motion to Consolidate should be denied. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days of the service of the findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NORMAN JOHN CRAIG,
JOHN D’AGOSTINI & VERN PIERSON,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00890-JDP (HC)
ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT
ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE MOTION TO CONVERT THE
PETITION BE GRANTED AND THE
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PETITIONS
ECF Nos. 3 & 5
The petitioner, Norman John Craig, is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel who
seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Before his petition could be
screened, petitioner filed a motion to convert his petition into a section 1983 action. ECF No. 3.
Then, before I addressed that motion, he filed a motion asking to consolidate more than one
petition for habeas corpus. ECF No. 5. I have reviewed both motions and recommend that the
motion to convert be granted and the motion to consolidate be denied.
In his motion to convert, petitioner states his intention to bring medical deliberate
indifference claims against unnamed officials at the El Dorado County Jail. ECF No. 3 at 2-3.
Such claims should proceed in a section 1983 action. Accordingly, I recommend this motion be
I have reviewed the motion to consolidate but cannot understand its substance. Petitioner
references mail fraud, mail tampering, and a shoulder injury, but he never specifies which
petitions he wants to consolidate or explains why consolidation is appropriate. ECF No. 5 at 5.
Moreover, consolidating petitions in this case is incompatible with the earlier motion to convert
that petitioner has not withdrawn. Accordingly, this motion should be denied.
It is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to rule on these
findings and recommendations.
It is RECOMMENDED that:
Petitioner’s motion to convert, ECF No. 3, be granted. If this recommendation is
adopted, the Clerk of Court should be ordered to send petitioner a section 1983 complaint form
and the appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner should be given sixty
days to file his complaint and either pay the filing fee or submit a completed IFP application.
Petitioner’s motion to consolidate, ECF No.5, should be denied.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the
United States District Court, Eastern District of California, these findings and recommendations
are submitted to the United States District Court Judge who presides over this case. Within
fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. That document must be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding District
Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 2, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?