Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00884/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00884-3/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

G. MEMO VERA,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER,

Respondent.

No. 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO AMEND THE FINDINGS

(Doc. 24)

Petitioner G. Memo Vera is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 18, 2024,

1

the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. Doc. 17. On September 30, 2024, 

the Court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the petition. Doc. 22.

On October 22, 2024, the Court received the instant motion to amend the findings, in 

which petitioner alleges that the Court “failed to address the motions herein attached.” Doc. 24 at 

1. Attached are a motion to amend the findings and two motions for sanctions. Id. at 2–6.

Previously, on July 17, 2023, the Court received a motion for sanctions from petitioner. 

Doc. 6. On December 28, 2023, the Court received another motion for sanctions from Petitioner. 

1 The findings and recommendations were signed on January 17, 2024, but not docketed until January 18, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 25 Filed 12/13/24 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

Doc. 15. On January 19, 2024, the Court denied both motions. Doc. 18. On February 12, 2024, 

the Court received the previous motion to amend the findings from Petitioner. Doc. 20. In the 

order adopting the findings and recommendations, the Court also denied the motion to amend the 

findings because “the court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 

record and proper analysis.” Doc. 22 at 2. Based on the foregoing, the Court did rule on 

petitioner’s motions, and petitioner’s assertion to the contrary is incorrect. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to amend the findings, Doc. 24, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 25 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2