Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06855/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06855-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON MAURICE LEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

 A. LAMARQUE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 03-6855 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 19, 36]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 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 Rule 72-302. 

On August 2, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. 

These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty

days. After receiving an extension of time, Petitioner filed objections on September 22, 2006. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As

Case 1:03-cv-06855-AWI-WMW Document 41 Filed 01/11/07 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 2

explained by the Magistrate Judge, the improper admission of Ruiz’s hearsay statements does

not entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief if the admission of Ruiz’s statement was

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Bockting v. Bayer, 399 F.3d 1010, 1022 (9 2005) th

(citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15 (1999). In light of other witnesses identifying

Petitioner as the robber and linking Petitioner to the robbery, the court agrees that the state

court’s finding that the hearsay statements were harmless is not contrary to clearly established

federal law. 

In his objections Petitioner also requests that the court allow him to expand the record

to raise unclear issues concerning Petitioner’s mental health. A new theory of relief cannot

properly be raised in objections to Findings and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary

of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United States

v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). "[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case

before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different

theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow,

863 F.2d at 638. In addition, any new claims concerning mental health found recently by

another prisoner who has begun helping Petitioner would be unexhausted, and as such, could

not entitle Petitioenr to habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August

2, 2006, are adopted in full;

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to

close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06855-AWI-WMW Document 41 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2