Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00943-3/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

RENE J. ZAMORA,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00943-LJO-SKO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL OF A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Docs. 21 and 25) 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On May 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which she 

recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing, deny the petition 

for writ of habeas corpus, enter judgment for Respondent, and decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability. The findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties, provided that 

objections could be served within thirty days and replies within fourteen days after the filing of any 

objections. Because neither party filed objections within the requisite time period, the Court adopted 

the findings and recommendations on July 1, 2015, well after the thirty-day period for filing 

objections expired. On the same day, the Clerk of Court entered judgment for Respondent and 

closed the case.

Case 1:12-cv-00943-LJO-SKO Document 26 Filed 09/15/15 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

Meanwhile, in a motion dated June 25, 2015, Petitioner moved for a 45-day extension of time 

in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 24. Petitioner reported that 

because he had been relocated to the administrative segregation unit of a new prison, he had been 

unable to secure priority use of the prison law library until June 24, 2015. Petitioner attested, under 

penalty of perjury, to placing the motion in the mail deposit box of Salinas Valley Prison on June 25, 

2015, properly addressed to the Clerk of Court. On July 14, 2015, after accepting Petitioner's 

representation of the mailing date, the Court found that Petitioner's motion was timely, vacated its 

adoption of the findings and recommendations, and reopened the period in which Petitioner could 

file objections to the findings and recommendations for 45 days. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

270 (1988). Although that 45-day period has now passed, Petitioner has filed no objections to the 

findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the 

entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court restates its prior conclusion that 

the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed May 

20, 2015, be adopted in full. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court 

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00943-LJO-SKO Document 26 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 2