Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00745-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

GARLAND JEFFERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0745 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #4]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On June 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would

entitle Petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that

the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 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 July 6, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 08/15/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

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. In his objections, Petitioner complains the Magistrate Judge erred by

relying on Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 (1977). Petitioner argues that Jeffers was overruled

by Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996), and that Rutledge created a new rule of

constitutional law which should be applied retroactively in Petitioner’s case. This argument is not

persuasive. In Rutledge, the Supreme Court did not overrule Jeffers. The Supreme Court

distinguished Jeffers and found the outcome of Jeffers comported with constitutional law. As noted

by the Supreme Court in Rutledge, “The [Jeffers] plurality did not need to hold that conspiracy was a

lesser included offense because it found that even if it was, the petitioner waived whatever right he

may have had to object to the second prosecution under § 848 when he opposed the Government's

motion, brought before the first trial, to consolidate the proceedings. Rutledge, 517 U.S. at 299, fn.9 ,

citing Jeffers, 432 U.S. at 149-150, 153-154.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge properly found that Petitioner has had many opportunities at

all levels of the federal courts to present his claims. See, e.g., United States v. Jeffers, 520 F.3d 1256

(7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, Jeffers v. United States, 423 U.S. 1066 (1976); United States v. Jeffers,

532 F.2d 1101, (7th Cir.1976), cert. granted, Jeffers v. United States, 429 U.S. 815 (1976), affirmed

in part, vacated in part, Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 (1977), rehearing denied, Jeffers v.

United States, 434 U.S. 880 (1977); Jeffers v. United States, 951 F.2d 352 (7th Cir.1991); Jeffers v.

United States, 27 F.3d 569 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, Jeffers v. United States, 513 U.S. 1030

(1994); Jeffers v. United States, 116 F.3d 1482 (7th Cir.1997); Jeffers v. Chandler, 234 F.3d 277 (5th

Cir.2000), opinion withdrawn and superceded on rehearing, Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th

Cir.2001), cert. denied, Jeffers v. Chandler, 534 U.S. 1001 (2001); Jeffers v. United States, 388 F.3d

289, 291-292 (7th Cir.2004) (“Since the conclusion of his direct appeal, Jeffers has attempted

numerous collateral attacks upon his CCE conviction, including a total of five petitions under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, three requests for leave to file additional § 2255 challenges, and three petitions under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. All have been unsuccessful.”)

Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the objections, the Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 08/15/05 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 cd 3

proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the

points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 30, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 08/15/05 Page 3 of 3