Clarence Zimmerman v. Fredrick Foulk

Filing 41

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge R. Gary Klausner for Report and Recommendation (Final) 40 . (mrgo)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE ZIMMERMAN, 12 Petitioner, v. 13 14 FREDRICK FOULK, Warden, Respondent. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 13-8597-RGK (KK) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition 18 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and both the original and final Report 19 and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged 20 in a de novo review of those portions of the original Report to which Petitioner has 21 objected. The Court accepts the Final Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 22 Judge. 23 In his objections to the original Report, Petitioner also requests an evidentiary 24 hearing. However, in habeas proceedings, “an evidentiary hearing is not required on 25 issues that can be resolved by reference to the state court record.” Totten v. Merkle, 26 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1173 27 (9th Cir. 2005). “It is axiomatic that when issues can be resolved with reference to the 28 state court record, an evidentiary hearing becomes nothing more than a futile exercise.” 1 Totten, 137 F.3d at 1176. Here, the Magistrate Judge concluded all of Petitioner’s 2 claims could be resolved by reference to the state court record. Accordingly, the Court 3 denies Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) denying the First 5 Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (2) dismissing this action with 6 prejudice. 7 8 9 10 11 Dated: June 2, 2015 _______________________________ HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?