Pham v. Subia

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to U.S.C. § 2254. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 04/01/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(ag) (kaj).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VING QUANG PHAM, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD SUBIA, Warden, Respondent. CASE NO. 07-CV-1736 H (WMc) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 On August 31, 2007, Petitioner, Ving Quang Pham filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims his federal constitutional rights were violated because: (1) the trial court's joinder of charges from separate incidents denied him a fundamentally fair trial; and (2) the trial court admitted evidence based on an illegal search and seizure. (Pet. At 6-9). On November 7, 2009 the Court issued an order requiring response to petition. On January 3, 2008, Respondent filed an answer to the petition (Doc. No. 7). //// //// //// //// 07cv1736 1 After reviewing the Petition, Respondent's Answer and Memorandum of Points 2 and Authorities, and all supporting documents submitted by the parties, and the Report 3 and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court adopts the Report and 4 Recommendation, and denies the petition. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. April 1, 2009 _______________________________ MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 Dated: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Copies to: Ving Quang Pham V-86160 PO Box 409020 Ione, CA 95640 Kevin R Vienna Office of the Attorney General 110 West A Street Suite 1100 San Diego , CA 92101 -2- 07cv1736 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 07cv1736

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?