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.

Watson v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 6, 2017

WALTER WATSON, Petitioner,
v.
R. DAVIS, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          DONNA M. RYU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with a May 27, 2015 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) denying him parole. He paid the full filing fee.

         This action has been assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings in a case, including entry of judgment.[1] Appeal will be directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).

         On June 17, 2015, Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 6.

         On November 9, 2016, the court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, noting several deficiencies within the petition that prevented this action from proceeding. Dkt. 9.

         On December 8, 2016, Petitioner filed an amended petition, as directed. Dkt. 10.

         For the reasons outlined below, the court DISMISSES the instant amended petition.

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).

         A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

         B. Review of ...


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.