Goff v. Salinas

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/8/13 and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 16 Motion to Dismiss; this petition proceeds only as to claim 1 and a portion of claim 3. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

THOMAS L. GOFF,

11
12
13
14

Petitioner,
vs.
M. SALINAS, Warden,
Respondent.

15
16

No. 2:11-cv-3251 WBS AC P

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 March 11, 2013, 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 fourteen days. Petitioner

22

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 to be supported by the record and by

26

proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 11, 2013, are adopted in full;

3

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is denied in part and granted in

4

part, as follows:

5

a. Denied on the ground that the petition is untimely; and

6

b. Granted as to the following claims on the ground that they do not allege

7

facts that, if proven, would constitute violations of due process: claims 2, 4, 5, 6 and that portion

8

of claim 3 which alleges that an investigative employee or other staff assistant was not at the

9

disciplinary hearing; and

10

3. This petition proceeds only as to claim 1 and that portion of claim 3 which

11

alleges that no witnesses were present at his [petitioner’s] disciplinary hearing.

12

DATED: April 8, 2013

13
14
15
16
17
18
/goff3251.805hc
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2