Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00329/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00329-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Respondent
Roderick Washington
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,)

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00329-LJO-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED without prejudice. These Findings and Recommendation

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service

of that order. On April 9, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to

the Findings and Recommendation. 

although in his objections Petitioner contends that he has

sought review in the Kings County Superior Court, Fifth District

Court of Appeal, and California Supreme Court, Petitioner's claim

is unfounded. As stated in the Findings and Recommendations,

Petitioner contends that he was falsely accused of threatening

staff on December 26, 2006, and he was not afforded his due process

rights in the disciplinary hearing conducted on January 6, 2007. 

Petitioner submits a copy of a summary denial issued by the

Case 1:07-cv-00329-LJO -DLB Document 16 Filed 10/30/07 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

2

California Supreme Court on February 14, 2007. (Court Doc. 10.) As

stated in the Findings and Recommendations, to the extent

Petitioner sought relief in the state courts, "it is apparent those

actions involved other matters such as his underlying conviction." 

(F&R, at 3.) It is absolutely impossible for Petitioner to have

sought relief in the three tier state court level, with the

California Supreme Court's denial issued on February 14, 2007, just

over a month after the challenged incident occurred. 

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 Recommendation are 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 Recommendation, filed March 28, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED

without prejudice; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00329-LJO -DLB Document 16 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2