United States District Court, E.D. CaliforniaNov 14, 2006
2:03-cv-1288-GEB-KJM-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2006)


November 14, 2006



Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 30, 2006, 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 were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In these objections, petitioner raises two additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which were not included in his original petition. He claims that trial counsel failed to convey the prosecution's seventeen year plea offer to him and advised him not to return to trial. Objections at 9.

This court declines to exercise its discretion to consider these additional claims. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner concedes that these claims are not exhausted and they are presented in a pleading which is not signed, much less signed under the penalty of perjury.

Finally, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted ade 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 August 30, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.