Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00539-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forrest Lee Jones
Petitioner
Jeanne S. Woodford
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORREST LEE JONES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

)

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00539 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #8]

ORDER DISMISSING GROUND TWO

FROM THE FIRST AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. #7]

ORDER LIFTING STAY OF ORDER

DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A

RESPONSE [Doc. #9]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

DISMISS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Ground Two of the First Amended Petition be DISMISSED as successive. 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 July 17, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation wherein

Case 1:06-cv-00539-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/01/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Petitioner agreed that the ground is successive and requested that the action proceed on the original

ground for relief.

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 7, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Ground Two of the First Amended Petition is DISMISSED; 

3. The stay of the order directing Respondent to file a response is LIFTED;

4. Respondent’s motion to dismiss filed on July 19, 2006, is DEEMED timely filed; and

5. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file

an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00539-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2