Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01279/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01279-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAY CABLE,

NO. CIV. S-06-1279 LKK/CMK P

Petitioner,

v. O R D E R

HOREL, et al.

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262. 

On November 16, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations which were served on petitioner. Petitioner has

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and

Local Rule 72-304, the court has conducted a de novo review of this

Case 2:06-cv-01279-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 08/17/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court declines to

adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and

remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this

order. 

The magistrate judge concluded that the instant petition,

filed June 12, 2006, was untimely. In his discussion of the

statute of limitations, set forth in 28 U.S.C, § 2244(d), the

magistrate judge focuses solely on subsection (d)(1)(A), which

provides that, 

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application

for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant

to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period

shall run from the latest of . . . (A) the date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or

the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Petitioner objects on the grounds that

the factual predicate of his claim “could not have been discovered

by him any sooner.” Petitioner’s Objections at 1. Specifically,

petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel (“IAC”) when his trial counsel “convinced him to accept a

plea. . .” Id. He seeks relief from the statute of limitations

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D), which provides that the

limitations period shall run from “the date on which the factual

predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been

discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(d). 

The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations does not

address petitioner’s claim regarding 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D).

Case 2:06-cv-01279-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Instead, the magistrate judge confines his analysis to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1)(A). Accordingly, the case is remanded so that the

magistrate judge may resolve the question of whether the instant

petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). 

The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 17, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01279-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 08/17/07 Page 3 of 3