Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01047/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01047-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Earl Gray
Petitioner
Rick Hill
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID EARL GRAY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN RICK HILL, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-1047-JAM-EFB P 

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 Rule 302. 

 On February 26, 2015, 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 fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.1

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

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

 

1

 Petitioner has also filed a motion to strike respondent’s motion to strike petitioner’s surreply. 

ECF No. 23. The magistrate judge recommended denying petitioner’s request to file a surreply 

and concluded that respondent’s motion to strike such was thus rendered moot. For the same 

reason, petitioner’s motion to strike respondent’s motion to strike is also moot and will be denied. 

Case 2:14-cv-01047-JAM-EFB Document 27 Filed 06/10/15 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

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 26, 2015, are adopted in full; 

 2. Petitioner’s motion to file a surreply (ECF No. 19) is denied; 

 3. Respondent’s motion to strike his surreply (ECF No. 21) is denied as moot; 

 4. Petitioner’s motion to strike respondent’s motion to strike (ECF No. 23) is denied as 

moot; 

 5. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is granted; and 

 6. Petitioner is granted leave to amend the petition to delete his uncognizable (Claims 

5(K), 5(L), and 5(P)), unexhausted (Claims 5(J), 5(M), 5(N), 5(O), 5(Q), and 6), and 

untimely (Claim 8) claims within thirty days of this order. 

DATED: June 9, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-01047-JAM-EFB Document 27 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 2