Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684-2/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BENYAMINI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

TERESA SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-0684 REC LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #9]

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Ground One, in part, and Three be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

federal claim. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Grounds One, Three, Four and Five

be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 September 26, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 14 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

his objections, Petitioner concedes that Grounds One and Three are unexhausted because they were

not raised before the California Supreme Court; however, he contends that Grounds Four and Five

were exhausted. Unfortunately, Petitioner does not provide a copy of the relevant state court petition;

thus, the Court cannot make a determination regarding Petitioner’s claim of exhaustion. The Court

will reserve judgment and allow Respondent to file a motion to dismiss on this basis should she

choose to do so. In addition, Petitioner does not contest that Ground One, in substantial part, and

Ground Three fail to raise a cognizable federal claim.

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. 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 proper analysis. With the exception of reserving judgment with respect

to Grounds Four and Five, 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 July 15, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Grounds One and Three are DISMISSED from the petition; and 

3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 14 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2