Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01236/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01236-6/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD THOMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-01236 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #14]

ORDER DISMISSING GROUNDS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

[Doc. #13]

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Grounds Three and Four be DISMISSED from the petition with prejudice. The

Magistrate Judge further recommended that Petitioner’s motion for stay be DENIED. The Findings

and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On June 30, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-01236-LJO-JMD Document 16 Filed 07/31/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

In his objections, Petitioner contends that Grounds Three and Four are exhausted because

these grounds, and the federal basis of these grounds, were contained in a supplemental brief

provided to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner provides a copy of this supplemental brief.

While it appears the supplemental brief was filed on March 21, 2005, prior to the California

Supreme Court’s April 27, 2006 ruling, there is no evidence or indication that this brief was properly

presented to the California Supreme Court or the California Supreme Court considered it when

making its ruling. Regardless, for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, these claims can be

denied on their merits. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 24, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Claims Three and Four of the Petition are DISMISSED with prejudice; 

3. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay is DENIED; and

4. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01236-LJO-JMD Document 16 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2