Cornwell v. Warden, 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-KJN. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190320999
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2019
Summary: DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Petitioner is a state prisoner under sentence of death. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 15, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 119.) On June 14, 2018, Respondent
Summary: DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Petitioner is a state prisoner under sentence of death. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 15, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 119.) On June 14, 2018, Respondent f..
More
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Petitioner is a state prisoner under sentence of death. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 15, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 119.) On June 14, 2018, Respondent filed objections. (ECF No. 127.) On August 14, 2018, Petitioner filed objections. (ECF No. 128.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommendations filed February 15, 2018 (ECF No. 119), are adopted in full; and
1. The Court finds petitioner has satisfied 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d) for Claim 3.
2. The Court finds Claim 19 is premature and is dismissed without prejudice to its renewal after an execution date is set.
3. The Court finds the allegations in Claim 27 relating to Billy Mackey and Michael Johnson are not exhausted and are dismissed.
4. The Court finds consideration of the allegation in Claim 34 that state habeas counsel was ineffective is deferred until the consideration of any procedural default issues.
5. The Court finds petitioner has failed to satisfy section 2254(d) for the remaining claims and subclaims in the amended petition and habeas relief on those claims and subclaims is denied.
6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Source: Leagle
