Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00696/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00696-4/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL S. BANKUTHY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

MR. HICKMAN, Secretary, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-00696 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #13]

ORDER DENYING 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 9, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment in

favor of Respondent. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained

notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On January 24, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 and having considered the

Case 1:05-cv-00696-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 04/12/07 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

27

28

 California Penal Code § 1191.3(b) provides: 1

The probation officer shall provide a general estimate of the credits to which the

defendant may be entitled for previous time served, and conduct or worktime credits

authorized under Sections 2931, 2933, or 4019, and shall inform the victim pursuant to

Section 1191.1. The probation officer shall file this estimate with the court and it shall

become a part of the court record.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

A federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court decision either (1)

was “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States,” or (2) “involved an unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). To the extent

Petitioner contends that Respondent has violated California law by denying his work time credits,

Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because federal courts must defer to the state

courts’ interpretation of state sentencing laws. Bueno v. Hallahan, 988 F.2d 86, 88 (9 Cir.1993). th

The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the denial of credits in Petitioner’s case

does not rise to the level of a due process violation. While Petitioner claims in the objections that

his credits should be calculated pursuant to California Penal Code § 1191.3, this section itself defers

to any limitations on credits to those stated in Section 2933. 

1

The court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner cannot show any

equal protection violation because the other prisoners cited to by Plaintiff were not convicted of the

same type of crime as Plaintiff and/or were sentenced at a time when different sentencing provisions

were in place. To the extent Petitioner provides information on additional prisoners in his

objections, the court declines to consider this evidence. A new theory cannot properly be raised in

objections to Findings and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-

39 (9 Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9

th th

Cir.1992). Factual assertions that which could have been but were not presented to the Magistrate

Judge should be given no consideration when the court is deciding whether to adopt Findings and

Case 1:05-cv-00696-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 04/12/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Recommendations Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001);

Beam System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). 

“[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change

their strategy and present a different theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the

Magistrates Act.” Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 638. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued January 9, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00696-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 3