Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00534/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00534-3/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

MARIO STANFORD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0534 RRB EFB P

vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

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 April 27, 2007, 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. Petitioner has 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.

Case 2:03-cv-00534-RRB-EFB Document 28 Filed 10/01/07 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 addition, petitioner challenges his sentencing for the first time in his objections.

Petitioner has not exhausted these issues and may not pursue them in this proceeding; he may,

however, pursue these matters in a separate habeas petition properly exhausted in the state courts.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) (requiring exhaustion of state court remedies); Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 276 (1971) (claims must be fairly presented to state courts). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2007, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00534-RRB-EFB Document 28 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2