Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00739/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00739-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE EVERETT WELCH, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0739 DFL DAD P

vs.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 May 26, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has 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. Petitioner was granted three

opportunities to amend his habeas petition to allege claims concerning his rap sheet in the

Case 2:04-cv-00739-DFL-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 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

2

context of either a criminal conviction or a specific parole decision that arose in the Eastern

District of California. Petitioner failed to file an amended petition challenging a specific parole

decision. In his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, petitioner

states that the parole board relied on his criminal history transcript at a parole hearing on April

13, 2005. Petitioner does not allege that he has exhausted state court remedies on claims arising

from this recent parole hearing. Having carefully reviewed petitioner’s objections and the entire

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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 26, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new action

attacking the April 13, 2005 parole denial after state court remedies have been exhausted.

DATED: 8/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00739-DFL-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2