Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06502/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06502-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE L. MORENA aka )

JOSE L. MORALES MIRANDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

S. J. RYAN, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-CV-06502 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #27]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED as to all claims except Petitioner’s claim that his sentence is

unconstitutional. As to Petitioner’s claim that his sentencing his unconstitutional, the Magistrate

Judge recommended the claim be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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-06502-AWI-SMS Document 29 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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 In addition, it does not appear that these claims for relief were exhausted in the state courts. 1

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

On February 20, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 finds that there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on

the points raised in the objections. In the objections, Petitioner contends that there was insufficient

evidence to support the guilty verdicts and the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with

unfairness as to make Petitioner’s conviction a denial of Due Process. These claims were not raised

in Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition, and as such, were not addressed in the Findings and

Recommendations. A new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings and

Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), 

overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual

assertions that which could have been but were not presented to the Magistrate Judge should be

given no consideration when the court is deciding whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations

Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam System, Inc. v.

Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). "[A]llowing parties to litigate

fully their case before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a

different theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow,

863 F.2d at 638. Because neither the petition nor Findings and Recommendations contained claims

based on insufficiency of the evidence or prosecutorial misconduct, the new arguments made in the

objections cannot provide the basis of federal habeas corpus relief.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 1, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED as to all counts except

Petitioner’s claim that his sentence is unconstitutional;

Case 1:04-cv-06502-AWI-SMS Document 29 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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 Findings and Recommendations informed Petitioner of the option of holding this claim 2

in abeyance. Petitioner has not asked the court to hold this claim in abeyance. As such, it will be

dismissed without prejudice. 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

3. Petitioner’s claim that his sentence is unconstitutional is DISMISSED without

prejudice; and 2

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06502-AWI-SMS Document 29 Filed 04/13/07 Page 3 of 3