(HC) Johnson v. Walker, No. 2:2009cv00067 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 7/14/11 ADOPTING 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; GRANTING 31 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; a Certificate of Appealability is issued. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A) Modified on 7/14/2011 (Meuleman, A). Modified on 7/14/2011 (Meuleman, A).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Johnson v. Walker Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. JAMES WALKER, Respondent. ORDER / 15 16 No. 2:09-cv-0067 WBS KJN P Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On May 2, 2011, 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 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 2, 2011, are adopted in full; and 3 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; and 4 3. Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (Dkt. No. 31) is granted; a 5 certificate of appealability is issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 6 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the failure of prison 7 officials to appoint a staff assistant is a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 8 DATED: July 14, 2011 9 10 11 12 13 14 /john0067.805hc 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.
