Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06124/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06124-1/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

STEVEN LAWRENCE SCHMIDT,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-6124 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 22]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 28, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This 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 November 9, 2005, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

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 Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. In the objections, Petitioner primarily asserts that

Case 1:03-cv-06124-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/24/06 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

2

police officers lied at his trial to “cover up” two police officers’ shooting of Michael Duckett. 

The claims before this court are whether Plaintiff’s sentence pursuant to California’s three strike

law violates the ex post facto clause, whether Plaintiff’s sentence constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment, and whether Plaintiff’s counsel was ineffective for not objecting to juror number

nine. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of these claims, and finds habeas

corpus relief not available based on these claims or any combination of these claims. To the

extent Petitioner is attempting to raise additional claims and issues, the court declines to address

them because they are not exhausted, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,

518 (1982); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 1997), these

claims are procedurally defaulted, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-32 (1989),

and/or these claims were not presented to the Magistrate Judge as part of the petition, see

Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 28, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

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

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent; thus,

terminating this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06124-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2