Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00139/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00139-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ANDRE SHARP,

Petitioner,

v.

CRAIG KOENIG, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:20-cv-00139-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 6, 14, 16)

Petitioner Anthony Andre Sharp is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for a 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 

302. On February 14, 2020, petitioner’s case was administratively closed after the magistrate 

judge determined that the instant petition should be treated as a motion to amend in a related case. 

(Doc. No. 12 at 2.) 

Now before the court are petitioner’s two motions for a temporary restraining order,

seeking a stay of his state-ordered restitution payments. (Doc. Nos. 6, 14.) On February 25, 

2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 

both of petitioner’s motions be denied. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were

served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

Case 1:20-cv-00139-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 04/14/20 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

fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to 

do so has now passed. 

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

de novo review of case. The court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are

adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s motions for a temporary restraining order (Doc. Nos. 6, 14) are denied;

and

3. No further orders will issue in this closed case. (See Doc. Nos. 12 and 13.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00139-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 2