Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joseph G. Alcala v. Mike Martel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 11, 2013

JOSEPH G. ALCALA, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE MARTEL, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 2, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Respondent has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the declines to adopt the magistrate judge's conclusion that the motion to dismiss be denied.

Respondent sought dismissal of this petition on two grounds: that habeas relief is not available to Alcala because he was not deprived of any good time as the result of the disciplinary proceedings and because no clearly established federal law extends the procedural protections of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) to prison decisions that do not result in the denial or deprivation of good time credit. ECF No. 16. The magistrate judge rejected the first argument but did not address the second. ECF No. 21.

This court agrees with the magistrate judge's resolution of the first issue, but does not agree that the motion should be denied without resolution of the unresolved issue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 2, 2012 are adopted insofar as they find that petitioner's claim is cognizable on habeas corpus, but denied insofar as they recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

20130411

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.