Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted findings and recommendations concerning George Eugene Cross’s motion for reconsideration in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, denied other pending post-judgment motions as moot, directed that similar future requests be disregarded, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations concerning Petitioner's motion for reconsideration should be adopted after de novo review of legal conclusions and review of factual findings.
- Whether Petitioner's motion for reconsideration should be granted.
- Whether the other pending post-judgment motions should remain pending.
- Whether the court should issue a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after presuming factual findings correct and reviewing legal conclusions de novo.
- Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Key quotations
“The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” (at 1)
“Having reviewed the file, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.” (at 1)
Factual background
George Eugene Cross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Michael Corona. Final judgment was entered in 2010. In 2025, Cross moved for reconsideration and objected to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations addressing that motion.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a state-prisoner habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Final judgment was entered on March 31, 2010. In 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations concerning Petitioner's motion for reconsideration; after considering Petitioner's timely objections, the district court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and denied the motion.