Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06316/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06316-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-6316 REC WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 11, 22),

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS, DISMISSING ACTION AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 March 2, 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 March 15, 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). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations

Case 1:04-cv-06316-REC-WMW Document 24 Filed 03/23/06 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

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Petitioner’s contention that he never had an

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting allegedly new exculpatory evidence in his Section 2255

motion filed in the Central District of California is without merit. Although petitioner claims that

the district court judge in the Central District did not consider additional evidence set forth in

petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (filed as document 119 in the Central District action),

nothing prevented petitioner from seeking reconsideration of the denial of the Section 2255 motion

on this ground or from raising this claim in his appeal from the denial of the Section 2255 motion. 

Therefore, in addition to the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the court concludes that

petitioner has not made the showing required by Ivy v. Pontesso. Furthermore, the court concludes

from its review of the record that the allegedly exculpatory evidence does not demonstrate

petitioner’s “actual innocence” 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

 March 2, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06316-REC-WMW Document 24 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2