Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00310-1/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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - 1

2:02-CV-0310-RRB-JFM P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:02-CV-0310 RRB JFM P

ORDER

Petitioner Jon Eric Holley (“Petitioner”), a state

prisoner proceeding through counsel, 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 September 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 22) 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 ten days. Respondent Michael Yarborough

JON ERIC HOLLEY,

Petitioner,

vs.

MICHAEL YARBOROUGH

Respondent.

Case 2:02-cv-00310-RRB -JFM Document 26 Filed 12/18/07 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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - 2

2:02-CV-0310-RRB-JFM P

(“Respondent”) filed Objections to the Magistrate’s Findings and

Recommendations at Docket 24; following which Petitioner filed a

Notice of Supplemental Authority (Docket 25), citing Parle v.

Runnels, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2936652 (9th Cir. 2007)(granting

habeas relief under AEDPA for a combination of evidentiary errors

which individually and cumulatively violated due process).

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are

based in law, i.e., legal disputes, and in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the

Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings

filed in this matter. Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the

same, the Court does not concur with the Magistrate’s Findings and

Recommendations at Docket 22. Indeed, the Court finds that: (1)

the trial court’s evidentiary rulings did not deprive Petitioner of

his federal constitutional rights; and (2) the California Court of

Appeal’s decision was not objectively unreasonable. In fact, for

the reasons articulated by Respondent in his Objections filed at

Docket 24, the Court finds the trial court’s evidentiary rulings to

be entirely appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket 22) filed

on September 14, 2007, are rejected;

2. Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

is DENIED; and

Case 2:02-cv-00310-RRB -JFM Document 26 Filed 12/18/07 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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - 3

2:02-CV-0310-RRB-JFM P

3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00310-RRB -JFM Document 26 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 3