Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01288/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01288-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfonso Alfaro
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONSO ALFARO,

Petitioner, 2:03-cv-1288-GEB-KJM-P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. 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 August 30, 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

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In these objections, petitioner raises two additional claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel which were not included in his original petition. He claims that trial

counsel failed to convey the prosecution’s seventeen year plea offer to him and advised him not

to return to trial. Objections at 9.

Case 2:03-cv-01288-GEB -KJM Document 30 Filed 11/15/06 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

This court declines to exercise its discretion to consider these additional claims. 

See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner concedes that

these claims are not exhausted and they are presented in a pleading which is not signed, much

less signed under the penalty of perjury. 

Finally, 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 August 30, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

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

Dated: November 14, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01288-GEB -KJM Document 30 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2