Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06614/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06614-4/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

KENNETH M. HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-6614 OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

[Doc. 15]

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. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On August 17, 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 September 22, 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). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and

Case 1:04-cv-06614-OWW -WMW Document 17 Filed 12/18/06 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

that this petition be dismissed as a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims. Petitioner now objects to the findings and recommendations on the ground that the

Magistrate Judge did not inform him of the right to proceed on his unexhausted claims, claiming that

Respondent waived exhaustion as to the second claim. This objection is without merit. The

Magistrate Judge expressly found that the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims

and that the exhausted claims (claims 1 and 2) were not cognizable on federal habeas because they

are state law claims. Thus, although claims 1 and 2 were exhausted, Petitioner cannot go forward

with these claims. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050-51 (9 Cir. 2006). th

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

 August 17, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3. This petition is DISMISSED as a mixed petition containing both exhausted and

unexhausted claims;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06614-OWW -WMW Document 17 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2