Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02323/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02323-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Prison Terms
Respondent
Nathaniel William
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WILLIAM,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2323 LKK KJM P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 24, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

and respondent have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In his objections, petitioner alleges his guilty plea was not voluntary and that

counsel was ineffective during the plea process. These arguments were not presented in his

initial petition or in any other pleading considered by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this

court will not consider them at this stage. Greenhow v. Secretary of Health and Human

Case 2:02-cv-02323-LKK -KJM Document 20 Filed 03/30/06 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

2

Services, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds United States v. 

Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 24, 2006, are adopted in

full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: March 30, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/will2323.805hc

Case 2:02-cv-02323-LKK -KJM Document 20 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2