Opinion
1:05-CV-1117 REC LJO HC, Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation [Doc. #5], Order Dismissing Ground Four from Petition for writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. #1].
December 28, 2005
ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On October 5, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that recommended Grounds One and Four be DISMISSED from the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on September 1, 2005. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order.
On November 29, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner does not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Ground Four be dismissed; however, he contends that Ground One raises a cognizable claim and should not be dismissed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis; however, in light of the points raised in Petitioner's objections, the Findings and Recommendations will be adopted in part.
In Ground One of his petition, Petitioner complains that prison authorities have wrongfully and maliciously altered his medical status. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, the claim as set forth is not cognizable in a federal habeas action because it does not challenge the legality of his conviction or the duration of his sentence. In his objections, however, Petitioner expounds on this ground for relief by claiming that the alteration of his medical status has resulted in Petitioner no longer being able to earn a reduction in his sentence. Petitioner claims his change in medical status has caused him to be removed from the "work/privilege group," thereby depriving him of the opportunity to earn credit against his sentence. Couched in these terms, the claim no longer centers only on a condition of Petitioner's confinement but now implicates a change in the duration of his sentence. Such a claim might be cognizable in a federal habeas action. See Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2004); Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 4, 2005, is ADOPTED IN PART;
2. Ground Four is DISMISSED from the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and
3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.