(HC) Williams v. Unknown Doc.

Case 2:06-cv-02302-LKK-CMK Document 3 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 1 of 3

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 DELBERT WILLIAMS,

11 Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2302 LKK CMK P

12 vs.

13 Unknown,1

14 Respondent.

15 / ORDER

16 Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on October 18, 2006.

17 Petitioner attached to the petition is “exhibit 3,” which petitioner describes as “mystery meat”

18 and “mysterious MFG Lunch meats...” (Pet., Ex. 3.) Petitioner requests that the court send the

19 mystery meat for a laboratory determination.

20 Petitioner is informed that there is no need for a lunch meat exhibit in a habeas

21 action. (See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (habeas corpus petition is proper

22 method to challenge legality or duration of confinement, but civil rights action is proper method

23 of challenging conditions of confinement)). Further, the court is not a repository for maintaining

24 perishable exhibits, nor does the court send items for laboratory testing.

25 ///

26
1
Petitioner has failed to name a respondent in his habeas application. He lists the
respondents as “etc. and All.”

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:06-cv-02302-LKK-CMK Document 3 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT exhibit 3, which petitioner refers to as

2 mystery lunch meat, shall be disregarded and returned to petitioner.

4 DATED: October 18, 2006.

5
______________________________________
6 CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2
 Case 2:06-cv-02302-LKK-CMK Document 3 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 3 of 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26