Hernandez v. Lewis
ORDER DENYING 76 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/25/17. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JESUS CIANEZ HERNANDEZ,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
(Doc. No. 76)
On July 11, 2017, the undersigned issued an order declining to adopt the findings and
recommendations of the assigned magistrate judge recommending that the petition be granted and
referring the matter for further consideration of the standard of review and application of
deference, if any, to the factual findings made by the state court. (Doc. No. 74.) On July 17,
2017, petitioner filed both a request for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order and an
amended request for reconsideration. (Doc. Nos. 75, 76.) For the reasons set forth below, the
court will deny the request for reconsideration.
Petitioner maintains that because no objections were filed to the findings and
recommendations, the court erred by subjecting the findings and recommendations to de novo
review. (Doc. No. 76 at 2.) According to petitioner, district judges are not required to perform de
novo review of any portions of the findings and recommendations that are not objected to. (Id. at
2–4 ) (citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Whether or not
a district judge is required to review findings and recommendations de novo standard, it is clear
that a district judge may conduct such a review in issuing an order addressing findings and
recommendations. While the relevant statute requires the undersigned to conduct a de novo
review of any portion of a recommendation from a magistrate judge that is objected to, it also
specifically states the “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Accordingly,
reconsideration is not compelled based on this argument.
Finally, petitioner objects because he believes that the undersigned should not have
“reconsider[ed] the factual findings” of the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 76 at 6.) However, the
court did not reconsider the magistrate judge’s factual findings. Rather, the court sought further
legal analysis and explanation from the assigned magistrate judge as to the applicable standard of
review being employed and the deference, if any, being accorded to state court factual findings
under §§ 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1). (Doc. No. 74 at 4–6.)
For these reasons, petitioner’s request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 76) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 25, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?