(HC) LaBranch v. Yates, No. 2:2009cv00074 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 06/22/10 ORDERING that respondent's 15 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; petitioner's challenge to the validity of his 1988 conviction is DISMISSED as untimely; the 15 Motion to Dismiss the remainder of the petition is DENIED to the extent the petition raises violations of petitioner's due process rights; respondent is directed to file an answer w/i 30 days. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) LaBranch v. Yates Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY LaBRANCH, 12 No. CIV S-09-0074-JAM-CMK-P Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 JAMES YATES, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 / 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On March 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. Objections to the findings and recommendations have been 23 filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 4, 2010, are adopted in 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is denied in part and granted in 3. Petitioner’s challenge to the validity of his 1988 conviction is dismissed as 4. The motion to dismiss the remainder of the petition is denied to the extent 4 full; 5 6 part; 7 8 untimely; 9 10 the petition raises violations of Petitioner’s due process rights; and 11 5. Respondent is directed to file an answer within 30 days of the date of this 12 order. 13 DATED: June 22, 2010 14 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
