Poslof v. Attchley

No. 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK (HC) (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · June 18, 2025 · No. 1:21-cv-0339 JLT HBK (HC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and denied Lonnie Lee Poslof, Jr.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court also denied leave to amend, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and directed the clerk to close the case.

Holdings

  1. A general objection to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations is insufficient and does not require the district court to reconsider the unchallenged findings.
  2. Petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief because the state court's adjudication of Grounds One through Four was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
  3. Claims concerning restitution were not cognizable under § 2254 because they did not affect the duration of petitioner's confinement.
  4. A certificate of appealability was properly denied because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of the petition debatable or wrong, and petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
  5. Leave to amend was denied because petitioner showed no good cause for seeking amendment more than four years after filing the traverse and only after the magistrate judge recommended denial.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations should be adopted after petitioner filed general rather than specific objections.
  2. Whether petitioner was entitled to federal habeas relief on his Confrontation Clause, due-process, and evidentiary claims.
  3. Whether petitioner's restitution-related claims were cognizable in a § 2254 proceeding.
  4. Whether petitioner demonstrated grounds for a certificate of appealability.
  5. Whether petitioner should be granted leave to amend the habeas petition after filing a second petition more than four years after filing the traverse and after issuance of the recommendation to deny relief.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 335-36, 338 (2003)(followed)
  • Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(followed)
  • Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…