The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
ORDER: (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 28, 2010, Allen Lynn Jeffries ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner alleges the Department of Corrections abused its authority in violation of the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments when it transferred Petitioner between prison facilities and did not process an administrative inmate appeal in violation of the the First and Fifth Amendments. (Id.) On August 11, 2010, Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. (Doc. No. 10.) On October 4, 2010, Petitioner filed a traverse to the answer to the Petition. (Doc. No. 13.) On November 17, 2010, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. No. 15.) On January 1, 2011, Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R. (Doc. No. 18.)
The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and submits the matter on the papers. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Petition and ADOPTS the R&R.
In 1980, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of 15 years to life. (Lodgment, Ex. 1.) Petitioner claims that in 2005, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("Department") improperly transferred him from Calipatria State Prison to Kern Valley State Prison. (Id.) Petitioner claims the Department abused its authority by transferring him and by declining to process his April 2009 appeal concerning the transfer. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the allegedly unlawful prison transfer.
On May 18, 2009, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in Imperial County Superior Court alleging abuse of authority and refusal to process his administrative appeal. (Lodgment, Ex. 2.) On July 23, 2009, the Superior Court denied the petition as untimely. (Lodgment, Ex. 4.) On August 6, 2009, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal presenting the same claims. (Lodgment, Ex. 5.) The appellate court subsequently denied the petition. (Lodgment, Ex. 1.) On October 10, 2009, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition to the California Supreme Court presenting the same claims. (Lodgment, Ex. 6.) On November 10, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. (Lodgment, Ex. 7.)
I. Scope of Review and Applicable Legal Standard.
A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's report, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." Id.
The amended Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides the following standard of review applicable to state court decisions:
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence ...