Lopez v. Salinas
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/29/11 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed February 23, 2011, are adopted with respect to petitioner's due process claim; Respondent's motion to dismiss 11 is granted with res pect to petitioner's due process claim. Respondent's motion to dismiss petitioner's Ex Post Facto Clause claim is STAYED. Defendant SHALL move to lift the stay in this matter upon final resolution of Gilman v. Brown, 2:05-cv-830. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability. Case stayed. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
VICTOR LOPEZ,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Petitioner,
No. 2:10-cv-3168 LKK KJN P
vs.
S.M. SALINAS, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ
17
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States
18
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
19
On February 23, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
20
herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any
21
objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days.
22
Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
23
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
24
304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
25
file, the court finds the findings and recommendations with respect to petitioner’s claim that the
26
California Board of Parole Hearings (“the Board”) denial of parole deprived petitioner of due
1
1
2
process to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations with respect to petitioner’s
3
ex post facto clause claim. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the ex post facto
4
Clause claim, relying in part on the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion, in Gilman v. Schwarzenegger,
5
that plaintiffs seeking to prevent the Board from enforcing the amended deferral periods
6
established by Marsy’s Law had failed to demonstrate a significant risk that their incarceration
7
would be prolonged by the application of Marsy’s Law. Based on that conclusion, the Ninth
8
Circuit reversed the district court’s decision granting a preliminary injunction. The court finds it
9
appropriate to STAY proceedings on petitioner’s Ex Post Facto Clause claim until final
10
resolution of Gilman v. Brown.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 23, 2011, are adopted with
13
respect to petitioner’s due process claim;
14
2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) is granted with respect to
15
petitioner’s due process claim. Respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s Ex
16
Post Facto Clause claim is STAYED. Defendant SHALL move to lift the stay in
17
this matter upon final resolution of Gilman v. Brown, 2:05-cv-830.
18
4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28
19
U.S.C. § 2253.
20
21
DATED: September 29, 2011.
22
23
24
25
26
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?