(HC) (DP) Espinoza v. Cueva

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO ESPINOZA, No. 2:94-cv-1665-KJM-SCR

12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER 14 DANIEL E. CUEVA, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 20 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 31, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party filed objections to the 24 findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 27 novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court 28 1 | has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 2 || and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 347) are adopted. 5 2. Petitioner’s counsel’s motion to determine incompetency (ECF No. 309) is granted. 6 3. The court appoints John Mills as petitioner’s guardian ad litem in all matters relating to 7 || this lawsuit, including, but not limited to the settlement of any or all of his claims. 8 4. The services rendered by Mr. Mills as guardian ad litem shall be compensated and be 9 || paid under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e), in accordance with 10 | rates paid for appointed counsel. 11 | DATED: May 6, 2025.

13 = A/ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28