Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00175/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00175-2/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 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

2:03-CV-0175-RRB-KJM P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:03-CV-0175-RRB-KJM P

ORDER

Petitioner Michael Eugene London (“Petitioner”) is a

state prisoner proceeding pro se with an 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 January 27, 2006, 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.

MICHAEL EUGENE LONDON,

Petitioner,

vs.

A.A. LAMARQUE

Respondent.

Case 2:03-cv-00175-RRB -KJM Document 18 Filed 06/02/06 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

1 Within his objections Petitioner asserts the Magistrate

Judge failed to consider his “Reply Brief,” which Petitioner claims

was filed on May 1, 2003. The record does not show, however, that

Petitioner filed a “Reply Brief” on or about May 1, 2003.

Notwithstanding, in conjunction with the Court’s Order, dated April

13, 2006, Petitioner’s “Reply Brief” was ultimately filed on May 8,

2006, and properly considered by the Court.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

2:03-CV-0175-RRB-KJM P

Petitioner has field objections to the findings and recommendations

(Docket No. 15).1

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issue before it is

based in law, i.e., a legal dispute re adequate jury instructions,

and in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

and Local Rule 72-304, the court has conducted a de novo review of

the relevant pleadings filed in this matter. Having carefully and

thoroughly reviewed the same, the court finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

In particular, the Court notes California has previously

rejected the defense of transitory possession of a firearm by a

felon. See People v. Pepper, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1029, 1035-38 (Cal.

Ct. App. 1996). Thus, Defendant’s requested jury instruction was

not required as a matter of law. Moreover, even if the defense

were technically available, which conclusion the Court does not

reach herein, the specific facts of this case would not warrant it.

Indeed, a careful review of the facts - even as proffered by

Defendant - reveals Defendant ran from police when contacted by

them and made no effort to disclose the subject weapon and/or

Case 2:03-cv-00175-RRB -KJM Document 18 Filed 06/02/06 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 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS - 3

2:03-CV-0175-RRB-KJM P

ammunition to them. The Court concludes, therefore, that

Defendant’s conduct was not consistent with one innocently

attempting to dispose of the items in question.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 10)

filed January 27, 2006, are adopted in full.

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

(Docket No. 1) is DENIED.

ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2006.

/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00175-RRB -KJM Document 18 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3