Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00137/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00137-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willard Santos
Petitioner
D. Smith
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

WILLARD SANTOS,

Petitioner,

v.

D. SMITH,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00137 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. 8]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On February 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to allege grounds that would entitle

Petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the

Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 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 March 11, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In

his objections, Petitioner continues to claim that he is actually innocence of his underlying

conviction. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a claim of factual innocense. See Bousley v.

United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (“To establish actual innocence, petitioner must

demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror

Case 1:08-cv-00137-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 04/11/08 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

would have convicted him”); Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9 Cir. 2003). th

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, and 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 February 26, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00137-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 2