Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02337/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02337-3/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

DEREK TATE, 2:02-cv-2337-MCE-GGH-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

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 November 10, 2005, 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 (20)

days. 

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 66 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Neither party has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings and

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 5, 2005,

are adopted in full; 

2. Respondent’s July 14, 2005, Motion to Dismiss is denied

as to the following claims: 1) the trial court abused its

discretion when it permitted introduction of prior bad acts

evidence against petitioner; 2) the trial court abused its

discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to testify; 3)

counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and challenge

the prior bad acts evidence; 4) the trial court improperly

granted petitioner’s motion to represent himself; 5) the trial

court improperly denied petitioner’s motion for a continuance; 6)

the prosecutor committed misconduct by withholding evidence in

violation of Brady;

3. Respondent’s July 14, 2005, Motion to Dismiss is granted

as to the following claims: 1) counsel was ineffective for

failing to investigate photo I.D. evidence; 2) counsel was

ineffective for failing to present evidence to impeach Officer

Klimpie; 3) counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate

police misconduct; 4) counsel was ineffective for failing to

challenge several jurors; 

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 66 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5) all claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; 6)

the prosecutor committed misconduct by suborning perjury of the

first witness; 7) the prosecutor lost or destroyed tapes; 8) the

prosecutor read confidential attorney/client information; 9) the

prosecutor encouraged Officer Klimpie to give false testimony;

10) Cal. Penal ode § 1192.7;

4. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order,

respondent shall file an Answer addressing the exhausted claims

listed above; Petitioner may file a reply within thirty (30) days

thereafter.

DATED: January 10, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 66 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 3