Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00306-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD EDWARD RICHARDSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

BOB HOREL, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

 )

1:06-cv-00306-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HOLD

PETITION IN ABEYANCE (Doc. 18)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 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 September 6, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that Respondent's motion to dismiss be GRANTED on

the ground that the instant petition is successive, that

Petitioner's motion to hold the instant petition in abeyance be

DENIED, and that the instant petition be DISMISSED, without

prejudice. These Findings and Recommendations were served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

Case 1:06-cv-00306-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 10/31/06 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

In Gonzales v. Crosby, 125 S.Ct. 2641 (2005), the Court noted 1

the open question of whether a habeas petition filed after a previous

denial of a petition on SOL grounds would be successive under §

2244(b). See id. at 2648 n.6. The Court nonetheless cited Murray v.

Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (C.A.2 2005) (finding that a prior petition

dismissed as untimely under the controlling statute of limitations

presents a "permanent and incurable" bar to review of the claims.) 

2

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. On

September 28, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations. 

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 6,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss, filed July 21, 2006, is

GRANTED on the ground that the instant petition is successive;

3. Petitioner's motion to hold the instant petition in

abeyance is DENIED;

4. The instant petition is DISMISSED, without prejudice;

and,

5. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00306-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2