Steffensen v. Ives

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 03/31/2012. Respondent's motion to dismiss 11 is granted; Petitioner's Request for Status Hearing and/or Factual Findings 17 is denied; The findings and recommendations filed January 27, 2012 21 are adopted in full; Petitioner's Motion to Redact 24 is denied; and This action is dismissed. (Andrews, P)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FRANK STEFFENSEN,

11

Petitioner,

12
13
14

vs.
MICHAEL BABCOCK,
Respondent.

ORDER
/

15
16

No. CIV S-11-1389 KJM KJN P

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a

17

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

18

Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On January 27, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

20

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

21

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed

22

objections to the findings and recommendations; respondent has filed a response.

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 file,

25

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

26

proper analysis.
1

1

In his objections to the findings and recommendations, petitioner asserts a new

2

ground for habeas relief: that reliance by the sentencing judge on conduct associated with a prior

3

overturned conviction requires recalculation of his federal sentence. Plaintiff’s currently pending

4

habeas petition is based instead on his argument that he is entitled to credit for the time served as

5

a result of that prior overturned conviction. The court declines to address petitioner’s new and

6

apparently unexhausted argument first raised in the objections.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 27, 2012 (Dkt. No. 21), are

9

adopted in full;

10
11

2. Petitioner’s “Request for Status Hearing And/or Factual Findings” (Dkt. No.
17), is denied;

12

3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 11), is granted;

13

4. Petitioner’s “Motion to Redact” (Dkt. No. 24), is denied; and

14

5. This action is dismissed.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: March 31, 2012.

17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19

/stef1389.805hc

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2