Young v. Adams

Filing 47

ORDER RE 46 DENYING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS; DENYING MOTIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/20/10. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2010)

Download PDF
Young v. Adams Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. C 09-1462 RS (PR) ORDER *E-Filed 7/20/10* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION HOWARD ALLEN YOUNG, Petitioner, v. DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, Respondent. / No. C 09-1462 RS (PR) DENYING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS; DENYING MOTIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner objects to the Court's third order to show cause (Docket No. 46). As to his first objection, petitioner's claim that he was denied equal protection of the laws when not released after the completion of a work program is DISMISSED because it is not cognizable on federal habeas review. As to his second objection, petitioner's claim that the use of his financial records to identify him survives in claim seven in which it is alleged that the identification of petitioner was constitutionally faulty. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Petitioner's renewed motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED on the grounds stated in the Court's June 22, 2010 order. Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED as premature. This order terminates Docket No. 46. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 20, 2010 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 2 No. C 09-1462 RS (PR) ORDER

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?