Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06363/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06363-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK HUIE,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-6363 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 16]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

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

U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On September 1, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. 

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 October 6, 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

Case 1:04-cv-06363-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 01/03/07 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

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Petitioner’s contention in the objections is

that a confidential informant was improperly used at his third disciplinary hearing because it had

been found unconstitutional on administrative appeals from prior hearings. Petitioner misstates the

prior administrative appeals. The prior administrative appeals found Petitioner’s due process rights

violated because Petitioner was not notified of the hearing officer’s use of confidential information. 

Because Petitioner was informed of the use of the confidential information at the third hearing, the

prior administrative appeals’ findings have no implication on the third hearing. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

September 1, 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: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06363-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2