(HC) (DP) Espinoza v. Cueva

Opinion

ANTONIO ESPINOZA, No. 2:94-cv-1665-KJM-SCR

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE v. ORDER Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 31, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 fourteen days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 347) are adopted. 2. Petitioner’s counsel’s motion to determine incompetency (ECF No. 309) is granted. 3. The court appoints John Mills as petitioner’s guardian ad litem in all matters relating to this lawsuit, including, but not limited to the settlement of any or all of his claims. 4. The services rendered by Mr. Mills as guardian ad litem shall be compensated and be paid under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e), in accordance with rates paid for appointed counsel. DATED: May 6, 2025.

= A/ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE