Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01333/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01333-1/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

RONEY R. NUNES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-98-1333 DFL KJM P

vs.

ANA RAMIREZ-PALMER,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding with counsel with an application for

a writ of habeas corpus under 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 September 2, 2005, 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

Case 2:98-cv-01333-DFL -KJM Document 105 Filed 02/10/06 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

 In his objections, petitioner notes that claim 4 was raised in his state habeas petition 1

filed on February 27, 2002. Also, respondent has conceded that all claims have been exhausted. 

However, the court concurs with the magistrate judge’s finding that the failure of the trial court

to hold an evidentiary hearing, when entertaining petitioner’s post-trial motion to strike certain

prior convictions, at best states a violation of state procedural rules and not a violation of the

United States Constitution. 

2

proper analysis with the exception of the finding that claim 4 was unexhausted.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 2, 2005, are adopted in full

with the exception above as noted; and

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

DATED: 2/9/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:98-cv-01333-DFL -KJM Document 105 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2