Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02746/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02746-0/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

GREGG MICHAEL REITAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2746 FCD GGH P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 9, 2005, the court recommended that this

action be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies. On March 25, 2005,

the court granted petitioner a thirty day extension of time to file objections.

On April 4, 2005, petitioner filed an amended petition containing proof of

exhaustion. Good cause appearing, the February 9, 2005, findings and recommendations are

vacated.

In this action, petitioner seeks relief pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004). Petitioner was convicted in 1995. According to the amended petition, the

California Court of Appeal denied his direct appeal on January 27, 1997. Although petitioner has

not identified the date the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review, it is fair to

Case 2:04-cv-02746-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/19/05 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

2

assume that it was several years ago. Because the Supreme Court has not made Blakely

retroactive to cases on collateral review, no relief is available to petitioner on that basis. Cook v.

United States, 386 F.3d 949, 950 (9th Cir. 2004)(order). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 9, 2005, findings and

recommendations are vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 4/18/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

rei2746.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02746-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 2