(PC) Castro-Gutierrez v. Shockley ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERIBERTO CASTRO-GUTIERREZ, No. 2:21-cv-1391 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DORIS L. SHOCKLEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 3, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings generally to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. However, rather than 27 adopt the recommendation to convert the complaint to a habeas petition, Findings and 28 Recommendations at 2, the court finds “that the [plaintiff’s] claims must be addressed in a habeas 1 || petition, and dismiss[es] the 1983 claims without prejudice,” to the filing of a habeas petition. 2 || See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 3, 2021, are adopted in part; 5 2. This civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dismissed without prejudice; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case and enter judgment for defendant. 7 || DATED: October 12, 2021. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28