(HC)(DP) Steele v. Woodford, No. 2:2003cv00143 - Document 164 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 151 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/10/2010. Petitioner's 134 Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: defenses based on Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 2 88 (1989), asserted by respondent in Answer with respect to claims 4, 6, 29, 40.C.1, 40.C.8, 40.D, 40.E, 41.G, 41.M, 44, 45, 46, 55 are STRICKEN from the Answer. Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Respondents request that Court find petitioners claims 3, 5, 6, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 65, and 66 barred as procedurally defaulted is DENIED. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)(DP) Steele v. Woodford Doc. 164 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 RAYMOND EDWARD STEELE, 8 9 10 11 12 Petitioner, vs. ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent. 13 14 No. CIV S-03-0143 GEB KJM ORDER / On July 14, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 15 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 16 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Several extensions 17 of time were granted. Objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 19 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 20 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 21 proper analysis. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 14, 2010, are adopted in full; 24 2. Petitioner’s September 23, 2008 Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied 25 in part as follows. The defenses based on Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), asserted by 26 respondent in the Answer with respect to claims 4, 6, 29, 40.C.1, 40.C.8, 40.D, 40.E, 41.G, 41.M, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 44, 45, 46, 55 are stricken from the Answer. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied in all other 2 respects; and 3 3. Respondent’s request that the court find petitioner’s claims 3, 5, 6, 20, 21, 23, 4 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 65, and 66 barred as procedurally defaulted is denied. 5 Dated: November 10, 2010 6 7 8 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 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.
