(HC) Johnson v. Salazar, No. 2:2017cv01310 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/5/2018 ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Motions 23 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 34 , 35 , and 36 . The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. (Hunt, G)

Download PDF
(HC) Johnson v. Salazar Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE D. JOHNSON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-1310 JAM KJN P v. ORDER J. SALAZAR, 15 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. § 2241. 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 May 4, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 1 27 28 Petitioner filed five separate sets of objections, all signed by petitioner within the fourteen-day objection period. The findings and recommendations contemplated the filing of one set of objections. However, in an abundance of caution, the undersigned has reviewed and considered all of petitioner’s objections. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2018, are adopted in full; 5 2. Petitioner’s Rule 52 motion (ECF No. 23) is denied; 6 3. Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion and second request for certificate of appealability (ECF 7 No. 26) is denied; 8 9 4. Petitioner’s motions for relief and to set aside the judgment (ECF Nos. 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36) are denied; and 10 11 5. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 12 13 14 15 DATED: June 5, 2018 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16 17 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.