(HC) Lopez v. Runnels, et al, No. 2:2003cv00543 - Document 85 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 83 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 08/09/10 ORDERING that petitioner's 79 Motion to Entertain Second Petition is DENIED; petitioner's 80 Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED w/o prejudice; COA should not issue in this action. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(HC) Lopez v. Runnels, et al Doc. 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MANUEL GOMEZ LOPEZ, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. D. L. RUNNELS, et al., Respondents. 15 16 No. CIV S-03-0543 JAM DAD P ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application 17 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 18 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On June 8, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2010 are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s March 31, 2010 motion to entertain second petition (Dkt. No. 79) 4 5 6 7 is denied; 3. Petitioner’s Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 80) is dismissed without prejudice; and 4. For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s June 8, 2010 findings and 8 recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 9 right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. 10 DATED: August 9, 2010 11 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.