Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00912/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00912-2/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

CARL MERTON IRONS, II,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0912 DFL KJM P

vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden, et al.,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 23, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both

parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. The court adopts the magistrate judge’s conclusion that there is a liberty interest

Case 2:05-cv-00912-JAM-CHS Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 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

2

in parole under the California parole scheme. The court declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s

discussion regarding the extent of that liberty interest as it is not necessary to the disposition of

respondent’s motion. See the court’s order in Johnson v. Finn, CIV S-05-385 DFL GGH P. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 23, 2006, are adopted to the

extent indicated above; and

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is denied.

DATED: 3/31/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00912-JAM-CHS Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2