Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01958/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01958-5/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

MARION C. WOLFE, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1958 FCD EFB P

vs.

EDWARD D. ALAMERIDA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 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 December 5, 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. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. The magistrate judge correctly

found that petitioner’s proposed claim 22 did not relate back and proposed claim 25 did relate

back to the original petition. However, the magistrate judge incongruously recommended that

Case 2:02-cv-01958-JKS Document 98 Filed 02/05/08 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

the motion to file an amended petition with respect to claim 25 be denied and granted with

respect to proposed claim 22. The court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be correct and

that the concluding recommendation is a result of clerical error.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 5, 2007, are adopted in

full; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to file a second amended petition is granted in part, and

denied in part, as follows:

a. The motion is granted with respect to claim 25, and petitioner may

file an amended petition containing this claim;

b. The motion is denied with respect to proposed claims 22, 24, 26

and 27; and

3. Petitioner already has filed an amended petition, rendering that portion of the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations moot. 

DATED: February 4, 2008.

Case 2:02-cv-01958-JKS Document 98 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 2