Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02094/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02094-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rick Hill
Respondent
Allen C. Thompson
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

ALLEN C. THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RICK HILL, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-02094-LJO-SKO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 18) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On July 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which she 

recommended that the Court dismiss the petition as untimely. The findings and recommendations, 

which were served on the parties on the same date, provided that objections could be served within 

thirty days. On August 4, 2014, Petitioner filed objections. On August 27, 2014, after reviewing 

Petitioner’s objections, the record as a whole, and applicable law, the Court adopted the findings and 

recommendations and granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. The Clerk of Court 

entered judgment for Respondent.

On February 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations.” Following review of the document, the Magistrate Judge determined that its

substance indicated that Petitioner intended to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition. 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the caption, “Objections to Findings and 

Case 1:13-cv-02094-LJO-SKO Document 19 Filed 09/16/16 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

Recommendations” be disregarded. The Magistrate Judge then analyzed the document as a motion 

for reconsideration and determined that Petitioner alleged no basis by which the Court could grant 

relief. 

Accordingly, on March 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 

recommending that the Court deny the motion for reconsideration. The findings and 

recommendations, which were served on the parties on the same date, provided that objections could 

be served within thirty days. Neither party filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the 

entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed March 

16, 2015, be adopted in full, and the motion for reconsideration be denied. The Court DECLINES to 

issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02094-LJO-SKO Document 19 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 2