Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00851-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE RAY BEASLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

CLAUDE E. FINN, et al.,

Respondents. 

CIV-S-05-0851 DFL PAN P

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

On December 7, 2005, respondents filed a request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed November

23, 2005, denying without prejudice their motion to dismiss and

directing them to file within thirty days an answer to

petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Under E.D.

Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

The court has previously addressed this issue in Johnson v.

Finn, No. 05-385 (E.D. Cal. March 31, 2006). In that case, the

court found that California state law created a narrow liberty

interest in parole. Id. at 2-3. Based on the court’s previous

ruling in Johnson, the respondents’ motion is denied.

Case 2:05-cv-00851-JAM-KJN Document 13 Filed 06/14/06 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

2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge

filed November 2005, is affirmed.

2. Respondents shall file and serve an answer to the

petitioner within forty-five days from the date of this order.

3. Petitioner’s traverse shall be filed and served not later

than thirty days thereafter.

Dated: 6/13/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00851-JAM-KJN Document 13 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2