Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00273-5/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

BOBBY H. ELLINGTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-01-0273 DFL KJM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, 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 March 7, 2005, 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 fifteen days. On July 6,

2005, petitioner was granted until August 1, 2005 to file objections. On August 5, 2005,

petitioner was granted until August 15, 2005 to file objections. On August 17, 2005, petitioner

was granted until August 22, 2005 to file objections. On August 22, 2005, petitioner filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

/////

Case 2:01-cv-00273-JKS-KJM Document 80 Filed 02/10/06 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

 In his objections to the findings and recommendations, petitioner seems to raise a new 1

claim concerning CALJIC No. 2.50.1 pursuant to Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2004). 

See August 22, 2005, Objections to the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,

at 6-7. There are a number of problems with this “claim.” First, the objections are not the place

to introduce a new argument or a new claim that has not already been presented to the magistrate

judge. Petitioner never raised this specific issue in his briefing before the magistrate judge, and

he did not request leave to submit supplemental briefing. Second, the objections do not amend

the petition. Nor has petitioner sought leave to amend the petition. Therefore, there is no Gibson

claim properly before the court. Third, were petitioner to request leave to amend the petition, the

court would have to determine whether this claim has been exhausted, and it does not appear that

it has been. Finally, the claim would appear to be without merit. Although petitioner claims that

the instruction given here and in Gibson were identical, there is no fair comparison between the

particular instruction at issue in Gibson and the instruction here. See Findings and

Recommendation, at 27 n.10. Indeed, the instruction given here is not a propensity instruction at

all. Accordingly, the court declines to consider petitioner’s new argument based upon Gibson. 

For the first of these reasons, the court also declines to consider petitioner’s new arguments

concerning the unconstitutionality of AEDPA.

2

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.

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 7, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: 2/8/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:01-cv-00273-JKS-KJM Document 80 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2