Fisher

(HC) Driscoll v. Fisher

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 20211:20-cv-00602California729 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEROME DRISCOLL, No. 1:20-cv-00602-DAD-EPG (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS,

v. (Doc. No. 25) R. FISHER, JR., Respondent. 16 Petitioner Jerome Driscoll is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 12, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. No. 25.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief with respect to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, on the merits, because he had failed to demonstrate that either his trial counsel or his appellate counsel acted outside the range of reasonable professional assistance. (Id. at 15–17.) The magistrate judge also found…

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.