Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00915/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00915-1/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

ROBERT BENYAMINI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

TERESA SHWARTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00915-OWW-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 7, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as duplicative. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order. On September 26, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to

the Findings and Recommendations.

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, including Petitioner's

Case 1:05-cv-00915-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 11/07/05 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

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. In his objections, Petitioner contends that the two

cases are not identical. Specifically, Petitioner contends that in

CV-F-05-684 REC LJO HC, he is challenging solely his conviction. 

Whereas, in CV-F-05-915 OWW SMS HC, Petitioner is challenging only

the sentence. Petitioner's contention is without merit. In the

instant petition, Petitioner raises two claims: (1) incompetency

during trial; and (2) insufficiency of the evidence. Although

Petitioner attempts to phrase his arguments in terms of challenging

a wrongful sentence, the factual basis of Petitioner's challenges

are to his incompetency of counsel and the sufficiency of the

evidence. Petitioner's claim that he was incompetent during trial

is identical to Claim One raised in CV-F-05-684 REC LJO HC, and

Petitioner's challenge to the insufficiency of the evidence is

identical to Claim Two raised in CV-F-05-684 REC LJO HC. 

Therefore, Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 7,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as

duplicative; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00915-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2