Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00736-2/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

BERNARD BARNES,

Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-0736-LKK-JFM (HC)

vs.

KATHLEEN DICKINSON,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action was dismissed

without prejudice on April 7, 2010 due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

Judgment was entered on the same day. On May 6, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for relief from

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Rule 12, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not shown

grounds for relief from the judgment entered in this action. In particular, petitioner has not

demonstrated that he has exhausted state court remedies with respect to the claims raised in his

habeas corpus petition. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:09-cv-00736-LKK -JFM Document 23 Filed 06/09/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s May 6, 2010

motion for relief from judgment be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 8, 2010.

12

barn0736.60b

Case 2:09-cv-00736-LKK -JFM Document 23 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2