Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GARCIA v. WOODFORD

December 15, 2005.

ROBERT JOHN GARCIA, Petitioner,
v.
JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Director, Respondent.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DANA SABRAW, District Judge

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; (2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND (3) DENYING MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Petitioner Robert John Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Honorable Leo S. Papas, United States Magistrate Judge, has issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civ.L.R.HC.2, recommending that the Court deny Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. Having considered all of the relevant pleadings, the applicable law, and the R&R, the Court adopts Judge Papas' recommendation and dismisses Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus. In addition, the Court denies Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing. I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

  On April 18, 1974, Petitioner was convicted of one count of first degree murder and one count of second degree murder. Petitioner was given concurrent sentences. After Petitioner served a minimum term, he became eligible for parole consideration. On January 23, 1996, the Board of Prison Terms conducted a Parole Consideration Hearing and found Petitioner unsuitable for parole.

  On April 5, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Superior Court challenging the Board of Prison Terms' decision. The Superior Court denied the petition on June 28, 2001.

  Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal denied that petition on August 2, 2001.

  On September 6, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court. On March 27, 2002, the petition was denied.

  On June 5, 2002, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 2, 2002, the district court denied the petition without prejudice as a successive petition, noting that the application before the court was Petitioner's fifteenth petition.

  On November 23, 2004, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. (See Garcia v. Woodford, 118 Fed.Appx. 156 (9th Cir. 2004)).

  On March 28, 2005, Petitioner's case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to this court. Thereafter, the current Petition, Answer, and Traverse were assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas. On June 3, 2005, Respondent filed a Superseding Answer to Petitioner's petition. Petitioner filed a Supplemental Traverse on June 30, 2005.

  On July 11, 2005, the Magistrate issued a R&R, recommending that this court deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R on August 2, 2005. Subsequently, on August 4, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. II.

  REVIEW OF R&R: LEGAL STANDARD

  The duty of the district judge regarding the review of an R&R is set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where objections are filed, Section 636(b)(1) directs the district judge to review de novo "those portions" of the R&R to which objections have been made. See Hunt v. Pliler, 384 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2004). The district judge may then accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

  However, as to those portions of the R&R to which no objections have been made, the district judge may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. See U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.") (emphasis in original). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.