Jimmie E. Stephens v. Warden J. Schultz

Opinion

JIMMIE E. STEPHENS, No. 2:24-cv-02467-EFB (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In addition to the petition, he has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it is plain from the petition that petitioner and appended exhibits that is not entitled to federal habeas relief. ] Federal courts may not entertain habeas petitions brought under § 2254 if success on the petition would not necessarily accelerate the petitioner’s release from custody. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 992, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Petitioner is serving an indeterminate life term following a conviction for second-degree murder. ECF No. 1. He challenges various state laws and practices concerning the granting of parole. Even if petitioner’s challenges were sustained, petitioner would not be entitled to earlier release; at most he would receive a new parole hearing. Because success on petitioner’s claims would not necessarily accelerate petitioner’s release, he must bring his claims, if at all, in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jd. at 934. Because it appears from the face of the petition that it lies outside the core of habeas corpus, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: September 18, 2025 j Buta Z hb L A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE