(HC) Forbes v. Eldridge, No. 2:2016cv01884 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/12/2021 ADOPTING 45 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING and DISMISSING 26 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the merits; ISSUING a certificate of appealability as to Claim One in the present action; ADOPTING 56 Findings and Recommendations in full; and DENYING 51 Motion to Stay. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
(HC) Forbes v. Eldridge Doc. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOWARD FORBES, 12 No. 2:16-cv-01884 MCE GGH P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 L. ELDRIDGE, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 1, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 21 recommending denying petitioner’s amended habeas petition which were served on all parties and 22 which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 23 were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 45. Petitioner filed objections to the findings 24 and recommendations, and respondent filed a reply. ECF Nos. 49, 50. 25 On February 5, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 26 recommending denying petitioner’s motion to stay which were served on all parties and which 27 contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 56. Petitioner filed objections to the findings and 2 recommendations, and respondent filed a response. ECF Nos. 57, 58. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 Court finds the September 1, 2020 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 45) and the February 6 5, 2021 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 56) to be supported by the record and by proper 7 analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2020 (ECF No. 45), are 10 ADOPTED IN FULL; 11 2. The amended habeas petition (ECF No. 26) is DENIED on the merits and dismissed; 12 3. The District Court issues a certificate of appealability as to Claim One (Carter error) in 13 14 15 the present action; 4. The findings and recommendations filed February 5, 2021 (ECF No. 56), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 16 5. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 51) is DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 12, 2021 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.