Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00488/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00488-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLIN BINGLE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0488 FCD KJM P

vs.

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER, 

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 January 9, 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. Both

parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

by proper analysis.

Case 2:06-cv-00488-FCD-CHS Document 15 Filed 02/21/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 9, 2007, are adopted in full;

and

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted as to petitioner’s claims that he has

not been given a fixed primary term under the DSL, his parole hearings have been conducted

using more stringent DSL guidelines (which encompasses his ex post facto claim), and his right

to equal protection was violated when his equally culpable co-defendant was paroled in 1992,

but denied insofar as petitioner claims his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s narrow

proportionality principle.

DATED: February 20, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00488-FCD-CHS Document 15 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2