Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00221/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00221-3/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

BENNY RAY BROWN, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

 v. )

 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-00221-OWW-TAG-HC 

 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

(Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DISREGARDING

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

(Docs. 22, 23, and 25)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(Doc. 24)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 27, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed Report and

Recommendation that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust

state court remedies. (Doc. 11). This Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 26 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 3
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

of that order. On May 31, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to continue (Doc. 17), which the

Magistrate Judge construed as a motion for extension of time to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation of April 27, 2005; the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner an additional thirty

days in which to file his objections. (Doc. 21). 

On June 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of opposition to conspiracy. (Doc. 22). The

following day, Petitioner filed a notice of motion and motion in reply to opposition and ineffective

assistance of counsel. (Doc. 23). On July 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a reply to opposition filed June

17, 2005. (Doc. 25). All three documents are captioned for the Kern County Superior Court and

appear directed to proceedings currently pending in that court. The proof of service attached to the

documents indicates that Petitioner has served these documents on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District, the California Supreme

Court, and, in one instance, the NAACP, in addition to this Court. It appears, therefore, that

Petitioner has filed these documents with the Court as “courtesy copies” for informational purposes

only, and that no judicial response is either required or anticipated. Accordingly, these documents

will be DISREGARDED. Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 24);

however, in light of this order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to

dismiss the petition, such a motion is MOOT. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s request for additional

time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation of April 27, 2005, neither party has timely

filed objections. 

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

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 Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation issued April 27, 2005 ( Doc. 11), is 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; 

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 26 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 3
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

4. Petitioner's pending motions, including his notice of opposition to conspiracy filed

June 29, 2005 (Doc. 22); his notice of motion and motion in reply to opposition and

ineffective assistance of counsel, filed June 29, 2005 (Doc. 23); and his exhibits in

opposition (Doc. 25), filed July 1, 2005, are HEREBY DISREGARDED; and

5. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 24), is DENIED as MOOT. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 26 Filed 08/04/05 Page 3 of 3