Henderson v. Adams

Full title: LANCE KERWIN HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. ADAMS, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 14, 2008

No. CIV S-06-2369-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2369-JAM-CMK-P.

October 14, 2008

ORDER

JOHN MENDEZ, District Judge

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On March 12, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Doc. 42) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. After objections were filed, petitioner filed a motion for a protective order (Doc. 46) and submission of the findings and recommendations was deferred pending respondents' response to petitioner's motion. Respondents have filed their opposition (Doc. 53) to petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing.

In his motion for an evidentiary hearing, petitioner seeks to offer new evidence to show that: (1) the prosecutor knowingly presented false DNA evidence; and/or (2) the prosecution's expert witness testified falsely regarding DNA evidence. Any such new evidence, however, does not relate to any claim raised in the instant federal petition and was not presented to the state court. Further, the court agrees with respondents that, even if his allegations based on new evidence are substantiated, he would nonetheless not be entitled to habeas corpus relief.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 12, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied;

3. All pending motions are denied as moot; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.