1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 RANDOLPH A. JACKSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-07830-JAK (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS v. 13 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 14 I. HETMER, Warden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on 17 file and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, 18 the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which 19 objections have been made. 20 Petitioner’s objections are overruled. With the exception of the matters 21 addressed below, Petitioner’s objections do not warrant discussion because they are 22 addressed appropriately in the Report. 23 Petitioner complains that the records related to his 1981 conviction have been 24 destroyed. (ECF No. 19 at 1-3.) To the extent that Petitioner seeks to assert a claim 25 related to the destruction of records, it is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus 26 action. A habeas corpus action necessarily presents a challenge to either a conviction 27 or a sentence imposed by a state court judgment. See

; Preiser v. 28 1 || Rodriguez,

(1973). When success on a claim “would not 2 || necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement,” that claim 3 || does not fall within the “core of habeas corpus” and is not properly raised in a habeas 4 || corpus petition. Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). 5 || Because Petitioner’s complaint regarding the destruction of records, if successful, 6 || would not affect the validity or length of his confinement, it 1s not properly raised in 7 || his habeas corpus petition. See Nettles,

. 8 THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing 9 || this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 10 11 || DATED: te NOE 13 || Dated: March 24, 2020 | 14 John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28