Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00119-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAIN D. MOORE,

Petitioner, 2:06-cv-0119-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

WARDEN CAMPBELL, et al.,

Respondents. 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 1, 2007, 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 twenty days. Neither

party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On October 25, 2007, this court

adopted the findings and recommendations. 

On November 5, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to amend the judgment, which the

court construes as having been made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Petitioner states that he did

serve the court with objections to the findings and recommendations. Attached to petitioner’s

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 36 Filed 12/03/07 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

2

motion is a copy of the prison mail log showing that he sent this court mail on August 10, 2007. 

On November 7, 2007, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. Respondent states that

the California Attorney General’s Office received petitioner’s objections on August 14, 2007.

It appears that petitioner made a good faith effort to serve his objections on the

court. Why they were not received is unknown. Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion to

amend the judgment is granted. The October 25, 2007, judgment is vacated and the court will

consider petitioner’s objections which are attached to his November 5, 2007, motion.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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

file, including petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s November 5, 2007, motion to amend the judgment is granted;

2. The October 25, 2007, judgment is vacated;

3. The findings and recommendations filed August 1, 2007, are adopted in full;

and

4. Petitioner’s jury instruction error claim is denied and judgment is entered in

favor of respondents. 

Dated: November 29, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 36 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2