Warden

(HC) Bingaman v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 6, 20232:23-cv-01796California511 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NOAH WAYNE BINGAMAN, No. 2:23-cv-01796-TLN-EFB Petitioner, v. ORDER WARDEN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 31, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner, and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Specifically, Petitioner stated, after filing his 2241 petition in federal court, he had a bail review hearing in the state trial court, and therefore exhausted his available state remedies. (ECF Nos. 8–9.) As the findings and recommendations of the magistrate…

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.