(HC) Hendricks v. Long, No. 2:2015cv00564 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER and AMENDED JUDGMENT signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/12/15: This court's order and judgment 26 , 27 are vacated. Petitioner's motion for extended time 23 is granted. The findings and recommendations filed 9 /25/15, are adopted in full. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim and because duplicative of Case No. 2:15-cv-0768 MCE AC P (which was dismissed with prejudice on 6/12/15. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLIE EUGENE HENDRICKS, 12 No. 2:15-cv-0564 GEB AC P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 DAVID LONG, 15 ORDER and AMENDED JUDGMENT Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following this court’s order and entry of judgment on 19 October 22, 2015, the court received petitioner’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 23, 20 within which to file his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations filed 21 September 25, 2015. Petitioner filed his objections, ECF No. 24, contemporaneously with his 22 motion for extended time. Accordingly, the court vacates its order and judgment entered October 23 22, 2015, grants petitioner’s request for extended time, and considers the substance of petitioner’s 24 objections. 25 The screening of the petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 26 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed 27 findings and recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 28 parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 1 1 days. Petitioner has now filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 3 court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including consideration of petitioner’s newly- 4 filed objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and 5 recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. This court’s order and judgment entered October 2, 2015, ECF Nos. 26, 27, are 8 vacated. 2. Petitioner’s motion for extended time, ECF No. 23, is granted. 9 10 3. The findings and recommendations filed September 25, 2015, are adopted in full. 11 4. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim and 12 because duplicative of Case No. 2:15-cv-0768 MCE AC P (which was dismissed with prejudice 13 on June 12, 2015). 14 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 6. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2253. 17 Dated: November 12, 2015 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.