Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00458/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00458-4/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWARD STEWART, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

M. SHEPHERD, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________/ 

No. Civ. S-05-0458 RRB KJM 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

 Petitioner Edward Stewart (“Petitioner”) is a state prison 

inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the Governor’s 

decision to reverse1

 a decision by the Parole Board finding him 

 

1

 Respondent M. Shepherd (“Respondent”) notes that 

Magistrate Judge Mueller mistakenly characterized the Governor’s 

decision as a parole “recission” instead of a parole “reversal.” 

Because Respondent is correct in this regard, see In re 

Capistran, 107 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1304-05 (2003), the court will 

refer to the Governor’s decision as a “reversal” rather than a 

“recission.”

Case 2:05-cv-00458-JAM -KJM Document 23 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

suitable for early release on parole.2 On October 18, 2007, 

Magistrate Judge Mueller issued an order directing the parties 

to expand the record to include all the materials the Governor 

considered in deciding to reverse the Parole Board’s finding 

that Petitioner was suitable for early release on parole. The 

order was issued pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing § 

2254 proceedings on the basis that the additional materials were 

germane to the issue before the court and their review necessary 

“[i]n order to determine whether the Governor’s determination 

comports with the ‘some evidence’ standard.” Respondent now 

moves for reconsideration of this order pursuant to Local Rule 

72-303(c) on the ground that a review of the entire record is 

improper under both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and the “some 

evidence” test set forth in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 

(1985). 

Under Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s order 

shall be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to 

 

2

 In response to Petitioner’s petition, Respondent filed an 

answer along with the following exhibits: (1) Exhibit A, the 

abstract of the judgment from Petitioner’s 1981 murder 

conviction; (2) Exhibit B, the Sacramento County Superior 

Court’s decision on Petitioner’s state habeas petition; (3) 

Exhibit C, the March 13, 2002 transcript of Petitioner’s parole 

hearing; (4) Exhibit D, a portion of the probation report; and 

(5) Exhibit E, the Governor’s Indeterminate Sentence Parole 

Release Review. 

 

Case 2:05-cv-00458-JAM -KJM Document 23 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

law.” Local Rule 72-303(f) (E.D. Cal. 2005). After careful 

consideration of Respondent’s brief and the magistrate’s order, 

the court finds that the magistrate’s ruling was not “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law.” Accordingly, Magistrate Judge 

Mueller’s October 18, 2007 order is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00458-JAM -KJM Document 23 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 3