Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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 The case was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District

Local Rule 72-302.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GERALD F. STANLEY,

NO. CIV. S-95-1500 FCD GGH P

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEANNIE WOODFORD,

Respondent.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on petitioner Gerald

Stanley’s objections to the findings and recommendations of the

magistrate judge, filed March 3, 2004 (“F&R”), addressing

respondent’s procedural default affirmative defense.1 In the

F&R, the magistrate judge found that “[t]he timeliness (Clark)

bar should not be applied; the failure-to-raise-on-direct-review

(Dixon) bar should be imposed on Claims I, IV, VIII, and XI of

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 517 Filed 08/03/05 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 The court acknowledges that, technically, since this

date the matter has been “pending” before the undersigned. 

However, due to an administrative oversight, the undersigned was

only first made aware of the F&R on July 28, 2005. At no time

prior to that date did either party bring the matter to the

court’s attention. Rather, the oversight was discovered by court

personnel.

2

the amended petition.” (F&R at 21.)

The F&R was served on all parties and contained notice to

all parties that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Per an

extension of time, petitioner filed his objections on April 6,

2004. Respondent filed a reply thereto on April 19, 2004.2

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

636(b)(1)(C) and Eastern District Local Rule 72-304, this court

has conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully

reviewed the entire file, the court finds the F&R to be supported

by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The F&R, filed March 3, 2004, is adopted in full. The Dixon

bar applies to Claims I, IV, VIII, and XI of the amended

petition, thereby precluding review on the merits of these

claims.

DATED: August 2, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 517 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2