Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01027/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01027-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL JOSEPH VALINE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WILLIAM L. MUNIZ, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-01027-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On February 14, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. These objections do not substantively address 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Instead, they request a certificate of appealability in the 

event this petition is ultimately denied. This request is untimely. Petitioner may address whether 

a certificate should issue once the court rules on his petition. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Case 2:16-cv-01027-JKS Document 21 Filed 03/23/17 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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 14, 2017, are adopted in full. 

 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is denied as moot. 

 3. The motion to stay (ECF No. 2), which was predicated on this petition being “mixed,” 

is denied as moot. 

 4. This action proceeds only on petitioner’s first, fourth, and fifth claims. These are, 

specifically, that: (1) he was convicted by the testimony of an accomplice that was not 

sufficiently corroborated; (4) that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in 

failing to object before and during the trial to the unlawful search and seizure of 

petitioner’s cell phone text records; and (5) that the Sacramento County Sheriff 

unlawfully obtained a statement from Justine Valine by interrogating him while he 

was not in his right state of mind. All other claims contained in the petition are dismissed without 

prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 23, 2017 

Case 2:16-cv-01027-JKS Document 21 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 2