Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00459/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00459-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID O. WEIDERT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES YATES, ET AL., )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-0459-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. #10)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 12, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Respondent's motion to dismiss be

denied. These Findings and Recommendations were served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within ten days from the date of service of that order. Over ten

days have passed, and no party has filed 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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported

Case 1:06-cv-00459-LJO -SMS Document 25 Filed 09/29/06 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

2

by the record and proper analysis. Based on a new Ninth Circuit

opinion, California prisoners have a liberty interest in parole. 

See Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 2006 WL 2506393 at *3

(9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2006). Therefore, the court has subject matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to decide whether Petitioner's

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by the a

determination that he was not suitable for parole.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 12,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondents' motion to dismiss (Document #10)is DENIED; 

3. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00459-LJO -SMS Document 25 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2