Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00944/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00944-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Dean Ford
Petitioner
Fernando Gonzalez
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

Per docket # 33, note 1, respondent has identified Fernando Gonzalez, warden of 1

California Correctional Institution, as the appropriate respondent who should be substituted in for

Tom L. Carey. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY DEAN FORD, No. CIV S-05-0944 LKK GGH

Petitioner,

vs.

FERNANDO GONZALEZ, Warden, ORDER & 1

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, through his counsel, has withdrawn his request for an evidentiary

hearing on the D.N.A. evidence (related to claim five, the actual innocence claim), conceding

petitioner’s counsel’s belief, following further testing, that the D.N.A. evidence will not provide

at a hearing the requisite affirmative evidence of actual innocence. With this concession, and

because the DNA claim could not be timely (or found meritorious) without such a a hearing, the

undersigned recommends that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted as to claim five as well. 

See Findings and Recommendations, filed on November 12, 2009 (Docket # 40); see also, Order,

filed on January 4, 2010 (Docket # 47). Although these Findings and Recommendations, as well

Case 2:05-cv-00944-LKK -GGH Document 54 Filed 03/17/10 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

as those at docket # 40, remain pending before the district judge at this time, the court will now

set forth the briefing schedule on the remaining claim, claim one, at this time. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is to substitute as the respondent, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 25(d), Fernando Gonzalez in place of Tom L. Carey in the docket of this case;

2. Respondent shall file an answer, within sixty days, accompanied by all

transcripts and other documents relevant to the remaining claim, claim one of the second

amended petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases; and

3. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within twenty-eight days

after service of the answer.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed on

June 29, 2009 (Docket # 33), be granted, in addition as to claims two, three, and four, as

previously recommended, but also as to claim five, and this matter proceed only as to claim one

(1) of the second amended petition.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 17, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

ford0944.rsp

Case 2:05-cv-00944-LKK -GGH Document 54 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2