Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06067/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06067-4/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS A. CANEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

RICHARD E. EARLY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:02-cv-06067-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 38)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 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 June 2, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 

Recommendations that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment in

favor of Respondent. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order. On August 9, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Case 1:02-cv-06067-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 11/20/06 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

27

28

2

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

One issue deserves further analysis. In his objections,

Petitioner notes that the Magistrate Judge stated in the Findings

and Recommendations that in the petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed in the California Supreme Court, "Petitioner indicated that

during his preliminary hearing, former attorney elicited testimony

demonstrating that the chain of custody controls were violated as

to these samples." (F&R, at 19-20.) However, neither Respondent

nor the Court found a copy of the transcript of Petitioner's

preliminary hearing in the record on appeal. (Id. at 20.)

Petitioner has submitted a copy of his preliminary hearing

transcript. (Attachment to Objections.) Petitioner merely submits

the entire 170 pages of the preliminary hearing transcript, without

any argument or reference as to what evidence was elicited

regarding the chain of custody of urine and blood samples.

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the preliminary hearing

transcript and both the prosecution and defense counsel elicited

testimony regarding the chain of custody of the urine and blood

samples. (See RT 53-58, 63-64, 65-66, et seq.) However, as stated

in the Findings and Recommendations no chain of custody issues were

raised at trial, likely because there is no merit to such a

challenge, as the record amply supports an unbroken chain of

custody of the samples. As such, counsel could not have been

ineffective for failing to raise such an argument, nor was

Petitioner prejudiced thereby. 

Case 1:02-cv-06067-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 11/20/06 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 2, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06067-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 3