Opinion
8:21-cv-01525-MWF (SP)
09-27-2022
STEPHEN ROBERT DECK, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD United States District Judge
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
As one would expect of such eminent counsel, the analysis of the existing case law is extremely sophisticated. Nonetheless, this Court is not persuaded, for three reasons:
First, the sheer weight of the authority is convincing, even if petitioner attempts to distinguish each individual case. The magistrate judge treated the issue as black-letter-lawish, and one understands why.
Second, while this is not an AEDPA issue, that line of thinking can't help but color one's thinking here -- shouldn't the Court hesitate to use habeas corpus to adjudicate the merits of California's registration regime, absent a clear invitation to do so from either the U.S. Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit?
Third, this Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the thrust of habeas corpus is the actual sentence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED, and Judgment will be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.