Riel v. Woodford
Filing
568
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/17/2018 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 550 are ADOPTED in FULL; Petitioner has satisfied 28:2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect to the special circumstance and penalty phase determi nations; Petitioner has failed to satisfy Sec 2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect to the guilt phase determination; Petitioner has failed to satisfy Sec 2254(d) for his claims 6, 9, and 36; Petitioner's 470 Motion to Expand the Record or for an Evidentiary Hearing on his Claim 36 is DENIED; Federal habeas relief is DENIED as to petitioner's claims 6, 9, and 36. 2; the court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability on claims 6, 9, and 36. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHARLES D. RIEL,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:01-cv-0507 MCE KJN (TEMP)
DEATH PENALTY CASE
v.
WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,
15
ORDER
Respondent.
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner under sentence of death, has filed this application for a writ of
17
18
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
20
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within sixty days. Both parties have filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
///
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 30, 2015 (ECF No. 550) are
3
4
5
6
7
ADOPTED in full, and
a. Petitioner has satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect
to the special circumstance and penalty phase determinations;
b. Petitioner has failed to satisfy § 2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect to
the guilt phase determination;
8
c. Petitioner has failed to satisfy § 2254(d) for his claims 6, 9, and 36;
9
d. Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record or for an Evidentiary Hearing on his
10
11
Claim 36 (ECF No. 470) is DENIED.
e. Federal habeas relief is denied as to petitioner’s claims 6, 9, and 36.
12
2. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability on claims 6, 9, and 36.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: March 17, 2018
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?