Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01758-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Respondent
Zane Hubbard
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

///

///

ZANE HUBBARD,

 Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 25)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 

20)

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS IN FIRST 

AMENDED PETITION (Doc. 9) AND 

SUBSEQUENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 21)

ORDER DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS 

(Docs. 27, 28 & 29)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Case 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT Document 30 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 1)(“the original petition”). On 

November 14, 2013, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 7). On December 6, 

2014, before Respondent filed his response, Petitioner filed a first amended petition raising four 

claims: (1) use of a tainted photographic lineup; (2) admission of unreliable evidence from witness, 

Christina Silva; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel in representing Petitioner based on multiple 

reasons; and (4) an omnibus claim of prosecutorial misconduct on various grounds. (Doc. 9)(“FAP”). 

On April 21, 2014, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition for lack of 

exhaustion as to claims three and four. (Doc. 20). On April 23, 2014, the Court became aware that 

Petitioner had, on April 11, 2014, filed a separate habeas petition in this Court, no. 1:14-cv-00509-

LJO-SAB (“14-509”), which, pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-890 (9th Cir. 2008), 

must be treated as a motion to amend the pleadings, i.e., in this case, the first amended petition. (Doc. 

21). By order dated April 23, 2014, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to docket the petition in 

case no. 14-509 as a motion to amend in this case. (Doc. 22). On May 2, 2014, Petitioner filed a 

document entitled “Traverse,” which the Court construes to be an opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 24). On January 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to grant 

the motion to amend the claims to include the claims raised in case no. 14-509 (“the subsequent 

petition”) and to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss claims that have not been exhausted. (Doc. 

25). 

The Findings and Recommendations was served upon all parties and contained notice that any 

objections were to be filed within twenty-one days from the date of service of that order. On February 

26, 2015, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 

26). Subsequently, on March 26, 2015, Petitioner filed three motions: (1) a motion to “sever” this case 

from Petitioner’s co-defendant (Doc. 27); (2) a motion to consolidate all claims from both habeas 

petitions into one case (Doc. 28); and (3) a motion, inter alia, to alter the “judgment” in this case to 

Case 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT Document 30 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

name either the State of California or the United States of America as Respondent rather than 

Petitioner’s current warden. (Doc. 29). 

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, including Petitioner's objections, 

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations is supported by the 

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate 

Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 20, 2015 (Doc. 25), is ADOPTED 

IN FULL.

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20), is GRANTED.

3. Ground Three in the First Amended Petition and Grounds One and Three in the 

Subsequent Petition are DISMISSED as unexhausted. Also, those portions of Ground 

Four in the First Amended Petitioner relating to prosecutorial misconduct (i.e., 

harassment by law enforcement and nondisclosure of inducements) are DISMISSED as 

unexhausted.

4. The Court DENIES all pending motions (Docs. 27, 28, & 29).

5. The case is REMANDED to the United States Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: April 16, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT Document 30 Filed 04/16/15 Page 3 of 3