Godwin

(HC) Munoz v. Godwin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 6, 20242:22-cv-00214California3,968 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JULIO ZAMORA MUNOZ, No. 2:22-cv-00214-CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER RON GODWIN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas corpus proceeding filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned for all further proceedings in this action, including trial and entry of judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). See ECF Nos. 8, 13. In his habeas application, petitioner challenges his convictions from the Butte County Superior Court in three separate cases that were consolidated into a single direct appeal. Respondent has filed an answer and the time for petitioner to file a traverse has expired. ECF No. 16. Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the court denies petitioner’s habeas corpus application for the reasons set forth below. I. Factual and Procedural History In his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.