(HC) Crawford v. Butler, et al, No. 2:2003cv02626 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England Jr. on 6/6/07. Petitioner's 21 Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment is GRANTED. This Court's 16 Order and 17 Judgment entered thereon are VACATED and petitioner's 20 Objections are deemed TIMELY filed. Upon de novo review, 15 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS are adopted in full. Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Crawford v. Butler, et al Doc. 25 Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN K. CRAWFORD, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:03-cv-2626-MCE-JFM-P v. ORDER DIANA K. BUTLER, Warden, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 / 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of 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 General Order No. 262. 20 On January 26, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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 twenty days. Neither party timely filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. On February 21, 2007, this court adopted the 24 findings and recommendations in full and denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 25 corpus. Judgment was entered on the same day. 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE-JFM 1 Document 25 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 3 On February 28, 2007, petitioner filed a letter in which he stated that he had not been 2 served with the findings and recommendations. By order filed March 13, 2007, the magistrate 3 judge directed the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the findings and recommendations on 4 petitioner and granted petitioner a period of forty-five days in which to file a motion for relief 5 from the February 21, 2007 order and judgment thereon together with proposed objections to the 6 findings and recommendations. 7 On April 23, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for relief from the February 21, 2007 order 8 and judgment thereon together with objections to the findings and recommendations. On April 9 30, 2007 and again on May 1, 2007, respondents filed a statement of non-opposition to the 10 11 motion for relief from judgment. Good cause appearing, petitioner’s April 23, 2007 motion for relief from judgment will 12 be granted and this court’s February 21, 2007 order and the judgment entered thereon will be 13 vacated. Petitioner’s objections to the January 26, 2007 findings and recommendations are 14 deemed timely filed and have been considered by the court in its further review of the findings 15 and recommendations. 16 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 17 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including the objections filed by petitioner 18 on April 20, 2007. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and 19 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Petitioner’s April2 3, 2007 motion for relief from judgment is granted; 22 2. This court’s February 21, 2007 order and the judgment entered thereon are vacated; 23 3. Petitioner’s April 23, 2007 objections to the January 26, 2007 finding and 24 25 26 recommendations are deemed timely filed; 4. Upon de novo review, the findings and recommendations filed January 26, 2007, are adopted in full; and 2 Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE-JFM 1 2 Document 25 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 3 of 3 5. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Dated: June 6, 2007 3 4 5 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
