Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00072/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00072-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Cobos
Petitioner
Mendoza-Powers
Respondent

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

TONY COBOS,

Petitioner,

v.

MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00072 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT

(CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

UNNECESSARY)

[Doc. 15]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges that he has been unconstitutionally denied a

parole date. 

 On March 17, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This 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 April 7, 2008, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for

Case 1:07-cv-00072-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

questioning the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. As outlined by the Findings and Recommendation,

there is “some evidence” that Petitioner poses an unacceptable risk to the public. See Irons v.

Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2007); Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d

1123, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2006); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Relief is

not warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 17, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent;

and,

4. A certificate of appealability is unnecessary (see Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229

(9th Cir. 2005); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00072-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 Page 2 of 2