(HC) (DP) Riel v. Woodford, No. 2:2001cv00507 - Document 568 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/17/2018 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 550 are ADOPTED in FULL; Petitioner has satisfied 28:2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect to the special circumstance and penalty phase determi nations; Petitioner has failed to satisfy Sec 2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect to the guilt phase determination; Petitioner has failed to satisfy Sec 2254(d) for his claims 6, 9, and 36; Petitioner's 470 Motion to Expand the Record or for an Evidentiary Hearing on his Claim 36 is DENIED; Federal habeas relief is DENIED as to petitioner's claims 6, 9, and 36. 2; the court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability on claims 6, 9, and 36. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(HC) (DP) Riel v. Woodford Doc. 568 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES D. RIEL, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:01-cv-0507 MCE KJN (TEMP) DEATH PENALTY CASE v. WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner under sentence of death, has filed this application for a writ of 17 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 30, 2015, 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 sixty days. Both parties have 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 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 30, 2015 (ECF No. 550) are 3 4 5 6 7 ADOPTED in full, and a. Petitioner has satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect to the special circumstance and penalty phase determinations; b. Petitioner has failed to satisfy § 2254(d) for his claims 2 and 5 with respect to the guilt phase determination; 8 c. Petitioner has failed to satisfy § 2254(d) for his claims 6, 9, and 36; 9 d. Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record or for an Evidentiary Hearing on his 10 11 Claim 36 (ECF No. 470) is DENIED. e. Federal habeas relief is denied as to petitioner’s claims 6, 9, and 36. 12 2. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability on claims 6, 9, and 36. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 17, 2018 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.