(HC) Franklin v. Valenzuela, No. 2:2015cv02081 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 03/03/16 ORDERING that petitioner's 9 Motion for Stay is DENIED; the 8 first amended petition is DISMISSED as "mixed"; the Court DECLINES to issue COA; petitioner's 11 Motion to Amend is GRANTED and the court will proceed to screen the 12 Second Amended Petition. (Benson, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALOYSIUS P. FRANKLIN, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2081 GEB CKD P v. ORDER E. VALENZUELA, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 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. 20 On February 2, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 2, 2016, are adopted in full; 4 2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (ECF No. 9) is denied; 5 3. The First Amended Petition (ECF No. 8) is dismissed as “mixed”; 6 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 7 8 9 10 2253; 5. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 11) is granted, and the court will proceed to screen the Second Amended Petition. Dated: March 3, 2016 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.
