(HC) Rodriguez v. Hill

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/15/2020 ADOPTING IN FULL 10 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING 1 Petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Tupolo, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL RODRIGUEZ, 12 13 14 No. 2:20-cv-1268 KJM KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER RICK HILL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge a 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 23, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Petitioner has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 24 § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 25 The magistrate judge recommended this action be dismissed based on petitioner’s failure 26 to exhaust state court remedies. Indeed, notwithstanding petitioner’s objections, it appears he 27 may have filed his petition with this court in error, as it is addressed to the Sacramento County 28 Superior Court. 1 1 Additionally, in his objections, petitioner claims that the instant action is a civil rights 2 action. Attached to the objections is a copy of the first page of petitioner’s civil rights complaint 3 filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2: 19-cv-0093 JVS 4 FFM. It appears petitioner has confused the instant action with that Central District case. In the 5 instant action, petitioner challenges the validity of a prison disciplinary conviction for Possession 6 of a Deadly Weapon. In 2:19-cv-0093, petitioner challenged the validity of a prison disciplinary 7 conviction for “Promoting STG Activities.”1 8 9 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 23, 2020, are adopted in full; 12 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust 13 state remedies; and 14 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2253. 16 DATED: October 15, 2020. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (internal quotation omitted). 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?