(HC) Lyons, et al v. White, et al, No. 2:1996cv00784 - Document 101 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 03/03/16 DISMISSING 91 Motion for Relief from Judgment to the extent that it is a successive petition, and DENIED to the extent that it is a Rule 60(b) motion and ADOPTING IN FULL 98 Findings and Recommendations. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. (Jackson, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE LYONS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:96-cv-0784 GEB GGH P v. ORDER THEODORE WHTE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 2, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 2, 2016, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), ECF No. 91, is 4 DISMISSED to the extent that it is a successive petition, and DENIED to the extent that it is a 5 Rule 60(b) motion; and 6 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 7 2253. 8 Dated: March 3, 2016 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.