(HC) Barnes v. Board of Parole Hearing, et al, No. 2:2009cv00736 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 6/8/2010 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 22 motion for Relief from judgment be denied. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(HC) Barnes v. Board of Parole Hearing, et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BERNARD BARNES, 11 Petitioner, 12 No. 2:09-cv-0736-LKK-JFM (HC) vs. 13 KATHLEEN DICKINSON, 14 Respondent. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an 17 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action was dismissed 18 without prejudice on April 7, 2010 due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies. 19 Judgment was entered on the same day. On May 6, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for relief from 20 judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Rule 12, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not shown 21 grounds for relief from the judgment entered in this action. In particular, petitioner has not 22 demonstrated that he has exhausted state court remedies with respect to the claims raised in his 23 habeas corpus petition. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s May 6, 2010 motion for relief from judgment be denied. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 5 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 9 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 10 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: June 8, 2010. 12 13 14 15 16 12 barn0736.60b 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.