Housh

Housh v. Rackley

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 2, 20204:17-cv-04222California1,272 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CARLOS C. HOUSH, Case No. 17-cv-04222-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

TRANSCRIPTS; GRANTING

v. REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED PETITION

RONALD RACKLEY, Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 55 Defendant.

12 Petitioner, a pro se prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending before the Court are petitioner’s “Motion to Object re: Dkt. 48”, Dkt. No. 52, and petitioner’s request that the Court consider a claim that the CDCR has incorrectly calculated his sentence by failing to take into account Propositions 36 and 47, Dkt. No. 55. BACKGROUND The petition alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s Batson/Wheeler motion; the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Moskowitz’s December 2008 psychiatric report; petitioner was prejudiced by the victim’s references to his custodial status…

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.