Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00679-7/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 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

2:01-CV-0679-RRB-JFM-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:01-CV-0679-RRB-JFM-P

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner Joel Bridgeforth

(“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, with an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (Docket No. 1). The matter was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 12, 2006, Magistrate Judge Moulds filed

Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 28) herein, which were

served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties

that any objections to the same were to be filed within twenty

JOEL BRIDGEFORTH,

Petitioner,

vs.

A.C. NEWLAND, et al.,

Respondents.

Case 2:01-cv-00679-RRB -JFM Document 35 Filed 07/21/06 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

1 On March 15, 2006, Petitioner also filed a request for

production of a transcript of state court proceedings held on

August 5, 1998 (Docket No. 31); wherein, he argued that the

transcript was relevant to his claim pursuant to People v. Marsden,

2 Cal. 3d 118 (Cal. 1970). Magistrate Judge Moulds granted

Petitioner’s request (Docket No. 32), and the transcript was lodged

on April 28, 2006 (Docket No. 33).

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

2:01-CV-0679-RRB-JFM-P

days. Petitioner has filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations (Docket No. 34).1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the Court: (1) requested,

received, and reviewed copies of the original pleadings; and (2)

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed

the entire file, including the transcript of state court

proceedings lodged on April 28, 2006, the Court finds the

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 28) to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 28)

filed January 12, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus

(Docket No. 1) is DENIED.

ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006.

/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-00679-RRB -JFM Document 35 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 2