Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00320-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

M. KRAMER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-0320 OWW SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #15]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #16]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED as successive. The Magistrate Judge further

recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On May 11, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation and a

motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying appointment of counsel.

Case 1:06-cv-00320-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 05/25/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections.

With respect to Petitioner’s request to reconsider appointment of counsel, as stated by the

Magistrate Judge, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the

case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In

this case, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the interests of justice do not require the

appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 8, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 

3. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00320-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2