Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01849-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Edward Powell
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

TONY EDWARD POWELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01849-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On December 26, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

a Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court enter judgment, terminating this

action. 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

January 18, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

//

/

Case 1:07-cv-01849-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 3
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

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. 

In his objections, Petitioner contends that he filed an

untimely § 2255 motion in the sentencing court, which was denied as

procedurally barred, and was affirmed thereafter by the Fifth

District Court of Appeals. (Objections, at 2.) Then in 2001,

Petitioner filed a second and/or successive § 2255 motion, which

was also denied as procedurally barred, and affirmed on appeal. 

(Id.) Thereafter in or about 2002, Petitioner submitted a Rule

60(b) motion, which was denied by the Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals. (Id.) As a result, Petitioner contends that he has n

means to challenge his conviction and sentence due to AEDPA's

restrictions. (Id.) Petitioner's objections are without merit, as

AEDPA's filing limitations or a court's prior denial of a § 2255

motion does not render the process inadequate or ineffective. See 

Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir.1999) (per curium) th

(holding that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on § 2255 Motions does

not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85

S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is

insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Lorentsen v. Hood, 223

F.3d 950, 953 (9 Cir. 2000) (same). Accordingly, Petitioner's th

objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:07-cv-01849-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed December 26, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment, terminating this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01849-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 02/14/08 Page 3 of 3