Opinion
Case No. CV 12-04318-VBF (RNB)
03-21-2013
MARTIN CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. DAVID LONG, Warden, Respondent.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY
FIRST CLASS MAIL. POSTAGE PREPAID, TO ALL COUNSEL
(OR PARTIES) AT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOST RECENT ADDRESS OF
RECORD IN THIS ACTION ON THIS DATE.
___________
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING PETITIONER'S PENDING APPLICATIONS
On January 9, 2013, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended the denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner herein on May 18, 2012 and the dismissal of this action with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge also recommended the denial of petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing.
On January 28, 2013, petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. He then filed a document on February 4, 2013 captioned "Supplement to Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation." Concurrently, he filed an "Application for Leave to Conduct Discovery," an "Application for Order to Compel Production of Documents" (attached to which was "Petitioner's First Request for Admissions" directed to the prosecutor in his case), an "Application for Authority to Issue Subpoenas," and an "Application for Stay and Abeyance" (which sought a stay of the action to enable petitioner to conduct discovery). Most recently, on March 12, 2013, petitioner filed a document captioned "Application to Permit Expansion of Record Pursuant to § 2254 [Rule 7]."
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation, and petitioner's objections and supplemental objections thereto. The Court also has reviewed and considered petitioner's various pending applications. Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court finds that petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief sought in any of his pending applications. See Cullen v. Pinholster, - U.S. -. 131 S.Ct. 1388,1398, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011) (holding that review of state court decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) "is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits").
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED (1) that petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied; (2) that petitioner's "Application for Leave to Conduct Discovery" is denied; (3) that petitioner's "Application for Order to Compel Production of Documents" is denied; (4) that petitioner's "Application for Authority to Issue Subpoenas" is denied; (5) that petitioner's "Application for Stay and Abeyance" is denied; (6) that petitioner's "Application to Permit Expansion of Record Pursuant to § 2254 [Rule 7]" is denied; and (7) that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.
______________
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE