Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00471/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00471-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK S. PARKHURST, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-00471-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 7)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed his petition on April 11, 2005. (Doc. 1). On October 28, 2005, the Magistrate

Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and Recommendations recommending that the petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because none of the claims in the petition had been exhausted

in state court. (Doc. 7). The Report and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained

notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. 

On November 4, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendations. (Doc. 8). 

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

Case 1:05-cv-00471-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 12/06/05 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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations are supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. Petitioner asks that the court excuse the exhaustion requirement because Petitioner

was given inaccurate information by this attorneys. Petitioner also points out that his statute of

limitations has nearly run on this action. The court has no discretion to excuse the exhaustion

requirement. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendations issued October 28, 2005, (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close the

file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00471-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2