Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05640/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05640-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL P. EVANS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

J.L. NORWOOD, )

)

Respondent. )

 ) 

 )

1:04-CV-05640 AWI JMD HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #26]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A REPLY

TO ANY RESPONSE [Doc. #28]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On June 9, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended

that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 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. 

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 29 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Court notes that in the objections Petitioner complains about the length of time it took to 1

resolve this habeas corpus action. For the record, any delay in resolving this petition was due to this

District’s crushingly high case load and not an attempt to single Petitioner’s petition out for delay.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 2

On June 25, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

Petitioner also filed a motion seeking permission to file a reply if Respondent filed a response to his

objections. (Court Doc. 28.) Respondent, however, did not file a response to Petitioner’s objections.

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner was not denied parole merely because he holds unpopular beliefs. Rather, Petitioner was

denied parole because he is a danger to society. The fact that some of Petitioner’s unpopular beliefs

may be related in some way to what also makes him a danger to society is not grounds for parole. 

Most dangerous behavior can be tranced in some manner to a person’s thoughts and beliefs. Thus,

and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the points raised in the

objections. 

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Motion for a Reply to Any Response is DENIED;

2. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 9, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 29 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2