Marshall

(HC) Stringer v. Marshall

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 3, 20202:09-cv-02980California1,307 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LONNIE DAVID STRINGER, No. 2:09-cv-2980-KJM-EFB P Petitioner, v. ORDER JOHN MARSHALL, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has 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 April 15, 2020, 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. Petitioner has filed ///// 24 1 Petitioner has been on parole since January 11, 2018. See Suppl. Br., ECF No. 90, at 5. 25 Because he is still subject to the conditions of parole, his habeas petition is not mooted by his release on parole. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (“An incarcerated convict’s (or a parolee’s)…

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.