Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00984/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00984-0/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

Petitioner pled guilty to the use of a knife and a prior prison term prior to jury selection 1

in his first trial. Petition, p. 1.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INEZ TITO LUGO, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0984 MCE GGH P

vs.

MARTIN VEAL, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Petitioner, convicted in 1990 in Sacramento County Superior Court of second

degree murder and sentenced to 17 years to life, challenges a Board of Prison Terms’ (BPT) 1

denial of parole. Petition, pp. 1-2. 

Petitioner contends that the BPT: 1) deprived petitioner of the due process to

which he is entitled in the protected liberty interest he has in parole because his parole was

denied without “some evidence”; 2) denied him parole based on unchanging factors, i.e., the

nature of the crime and past criminal history; 3) denied petitioner’s liberty interest in good

Case 2:06-cv-00984-GHK Document 5 Filed 06/28/06 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

2

behavior credits in denying parole. Petition, p. 4-5; 8-22. 

Petitioner notes that he has a habeas petition currently pending before the district

court. Petition, p. 5. In this matter, Lugo v. Warden of the California Medical Facility , Case

No. CIV S-99-1151 LKK GGH P, petitioner is proceeding with appointed counsel and is

challenging his underlying conviction. Because resolution of that matter may moot petitioner’s

claims herein, the undersigned, in the interest of judicial efficiency and economy, will

recommend a stay of the instant petition until the pending case is adjudicated. Upon

adjudication of the prior petition, the stay herein should be lifted and this matter should either, as

appropriate, proceed or be dismissed as moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this petition be stayed and

administratively closed until such time as Case No. CIV S-99-1151 LKK GGH P is adjudicated,

whereupon the stay should be lifted, allowing the instant petition either to proceed or to be

dismissed as moot, as appropriate.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

lugo0984.fr

Case 2:06-cv-00984-GHK Document 5 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2