Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00385/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00385-6/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

ROBERT EVERETT JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0385 DFL GGH P

vs.

CLAUDE E. FINN, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this 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 June 5, 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. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. 

Case 2:05-cv-00385-JAM-GGH Document 47 Filed 10/02/06 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

2

In addition to the magistrate judge’s analysis as to the fourth claim, the court notes that

petitioner’s claim that Governor Davis’s decision violated his plea agreement is similar to his

claim that the decision violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Both claims lack merit under Johnson

v. Gomez. 92 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 1996). Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim also fails. 

Petitioner claims that the sentence serves no penological purpose. However, one of the purposes

of imprisonment is punishment. See Cal. Penal Code § 1170(a). Moreover, although petitioner

has served many years in prison, the time he has served is not disproportionate to the horrific

crime for which he has been imprisoned. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 5, 2006, are adopted; and,

2. The petition for habeas corpus is DENIED.

DATED: 9/29/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00385-JAM-GGH Document 47 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2