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.

Hall v. Chappell

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

November 26, 2014

JAMES S. HALL, Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, Respondent.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL L. ABRAMS, Magistrate Judge.

This Final Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For the reasons discussed below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion, failure to prosecute, and failure to follow court orders.

I.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

On September 25, 2014, James S. Hall ("petitioner"), who is currently confined at the San Quentin State Prison, in Marin County, California, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition"). According to the Petition, petitioner appears to challenge the Board of Parole Hearings' ("BPH") denial of parole after a hearing held on July 20, 2012. (See Petition at 4a-b; Ex. B, at 1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the instant Petition be dismissed as unexhausted, and for failure to prosecute and to follow court orders.

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

As the disposition of this matter does not depend on a factual analysis of petitioner's underlying state court conviction, it is simply noted that petitioner pleaded guilty in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court to second degree murder.

III.

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION

The BPH's denial of parole violated petitioner's federal right to Due Process. (See Petition at 4b).

IV.

THE PETITION IS BARRED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

The Petition was filed after the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("the AEDPA"). Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA in its review of this action. See Lindh v. ...


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.