Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

(HC) Raul Maldonado v. Scribner Doc.

13

Case 1:07-cv-01076-OWW-DLB Document 13 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 RAUL JOSEPH MALDONADO, 1:07-CV-01076 OWW DLB HC
10 Petitioner, ORDER VACATING ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND
11 v. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND REFERRING
MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12 FOR ISSUANCE OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
SCRIBNER,
13 [Docs. 11, 12]
Respondent.
14 /
15
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
16
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
17
On August 2, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendation that the
18
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter
19
judgment. These Findings and Recommendation were served on all parties and contained notice
20
that any objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of that order.
21
On August 20, 2007 and October 15, 2007, respectively, Petitioner filed a motion to extend time.
22
On September 14, 2007 and October 10, 2007, respectively, the court granted Petitioner an
23
additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On November 26, 2007, Petitioner filed
24
objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
25
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
26
a de novo review of the case. In his objections, Petitioner contends that he is challenging his
27
validation as a gang member and subsequent placement in the Security Housing Unit, thereby
28

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:07-cv-01076-OWW-DLB Document 13 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 2

1 depriving him of potential good time credits. Based on Petitioner’s allegations, the Court finds
2 that Petitioner’s claim is cognizable under § 2254, and shall proceed forward. Accordingly, the
3 Recommendation to dismiss the instant petition as not cognizable under § 2254 is not adopted,
4 and the matter shall be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of a briefing schedule.
5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
6 1. The Court’s January 2, 2008, order adopting the Findings and Recommendation
7 and entry of judgment is VACATED;
8 2. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 2, 2007, is not ADOPTED; and
9 3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of a briefing
10 schedule.
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger
emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28