Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06201/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06201-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAMSAN SUON, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6201 AWI WMW HC

Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TOM CAREY, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 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 72-302. 

On March 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that

recommended the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. These findings and recommendations

were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Petitioner filed objections on April 26, 2006. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. th

1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the objections, petitioner states that the

Magistrate Judge has only recommended the court deny the petition because petitioner did not prove

Case 1:03-cv-06201-AWI -WMW Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 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

he is entitled to relief. Petitioner contends that the Magistrate Judge has mistakenly taken the

position that habeas corpus relief is only available to a petitioner who can properly prove relief. 

Petitioner claims that the Magistrate Judge failed to act as a fair referee of the court to ensure the

state court’s procedures were followed. Plaintiff is incorrect that he has no burden to prove his

claims. The burden is on the habeas petitioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the

facts necessary to support the claim. McKenzie v. McCormick, 27 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9 Cir.1994). th

“Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant

habeas relief.” James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9 Cir.1994). The court may only grant a petition for th

writ of habeas corpus on a claim that the state court has heard on the merits if a petitioner shows the

state court's decision (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law . . . or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Because Petitioner did not meet this burden, the Magistrate

Judge correctly recommended that the petition be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

 March 24, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06201-AWI -WMW Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2