Estrada v. Biter

Filing 53

ORDER Adopting 48 Findings and Recommendation, Denying In Part Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Evidentiary Hearing, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/17/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAIME ESTRADA, 11 No. 1:14-cv-00679-DAD-EPG-HC Petitioner, 12 v. 13 MARTIN BITER, 14 Respondent. 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. No. 48) 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of 18 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to the assigned magistrate 20 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. On August 19, 2016, the 21 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that an evidentiary hearing 22 be held with respect to petitioner’s first claim for relief and that relief be denied with respect to 23 the remaining claims of the pending petition. (Doc. No. 48.) The findings and recommendation 24 were served on the parties with notice provided that any objections thereto were to be filed within 25 thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Respondent filed a notice of no objection to 26 the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 52.) To date, petitioner has filed no objections to 27 the August 19, 2016findings and recommendations, and the time for doing so has passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 2 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued August 19, 2016 (Doc. No. 48) are adopted 7 8 in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as to petitioner’s second and third 9 10 claims for relief; and 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge in order to conduct an evidentiary hearing with respect to petitioner’s first claim for federal habeas relief. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?