Opinion
2:22-cv-00824 KJM DB P
03-31-2023
JIMMIE EARL STEPHENS, Petitioner, v. G. MATTERSON, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 December 30, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteenth. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 10.)
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 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The court writes separately only to note, in response to petitioner's objections, that this court must follow Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Under Nettles, “the presence of a disciplinary infraction does not compel the denial of parole, nor does an absence of an infraction compel the grant of parole. Id. at 935. For that reason, Stephens's petition does not fall within the “core” of habeas. See id. He must bring his claims, if at all, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed December 30, 2022 (ECF No. 9), are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action; and
4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253.