Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Connally v. Carey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 8, 2009

PATRICK CONNALLY, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS L. CAREY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the decision by former California Governor Gray Davis to reverse an October 11, 2002, decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings finding petitioner suitable for parole. Governor Davis' decision was based, in part, on the circumstances of petitioner's crime. Such a claim is cognizable in federal court under the Ninth Circuit decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008.) On May 16, 2008, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Hayward, and that case was argued before the en banc panel on June 24, 2008.

On October 10, 2007, petitioner filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, challenging a 2005 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings finding him unsuitable for parole. By order dated November 24, 2008, that petition was transferred to visiting judge Mary M. Schroeder for decision. On April 8, 2009, that action was stayed pending final disposition of Hayward v. Marshall.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be stayed pending final disposition of Hayward v. Marshall.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20090608

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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