Crawford v. Butler, et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England Jr. on 6/6/07. Petitioner's 21 Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment is GRANTED. This Court's 16 Order and 17 Judgment entered thereon are VACATED and petitioner's 20 Objections are deemed TIMELY filed. Upon de novo review, 15 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS are adopted in full. Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Crawford v. Butler, et al Doc. 25 Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 3 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 v. DIANA K. BUTLER, Warden, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. On January 26, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On February 21, 2007, this court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. Judgment was entered on the same day. /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN K. CRAWFORD, Petitioner, No. 2:03-cv-2626-MCE-JFM-P ORDER Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 3 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 On February 28, 2007, petitioner filed a letter in which he stated that he had not been served with the findings and recommendations. By order filed March 13, 2007, the magistrate judge directed the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the findings and recommendations on petitioner and granted petitioner a period of forty-five days in which to file a motion for relief from the February 21, 2007 order and judgment thereon together with proposed objections to the findings and recommendations. On April 23, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for relief from the February 21, 2007 order and judgment thereon together with objections to the findings and recommendations. On April 30, 2007 and again on May 1, 2007, respondents filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for relief from judgment. Good cause appearing, petitioner's April 23, 2007 motion for relief from judgment will be granted and this court's February 21, 2007 order and the judgment entered thereon will be vacated. Petitioner's objections to the January 26, 2007 findings and recommendations are deemed timely filed and have been considered by the court in its further review of the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including the objections filed by petitioner on April 20, 2007. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's April2 3, 2007 motion for relief from judgment is granted; 2. This court's February 21, 2007 order and the judgment entered thereon are vacated; 3. Petitioner's April 23, 2007 objections to the January 26, 2007 finding and recommendations are deemed timely filed; 4. Upon de novo review, the findings and recommendations filed January 26, 2007, are adopted in full; and 2 Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 3 of 3 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 5. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Dated: June 6, 2007 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?