Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00044/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00044-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO V. MONTANO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-CV-0044 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #9]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

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 January 26, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies. This Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

Over thirty (30) days passed and no party filed objections. However, on January 30, 2006, Petitioner

filed a pleading entitled “Motion of Dismissal of Sentence under False and Recantation of

Statement(s) by Witnesses.” Petitioner essentially asks the Court to review his claims and grant his

Case 1:06-cv-00044-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 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

habeas petition. Petitioner does not address the issue of exhaustion, but he does note that he has

sought relief in the Superior Court. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner must exhaust his

claims by presenting them to the California Supreme Court. 

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, the Court finds that the Findings

and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued January 26, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00044-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2