Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01051/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01051-1/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

27

28

05CV1051

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN FLOYD ULLRICH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1051-L (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING ACTION AS

UNTIMELY

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding in pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Louisa S. Porter for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing Petitioner did not satisfy the “in custody”

requirement, the Petition was untimely, and Petitioner failed to exhaust state court remedies. 

Petitioner opposed the motion by filing Petitioner’s Response to States [sic] September 7, 2005

Pleadings. Respondents did not file a reply. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Judge Porter

issued a Report and Recommendation Granting Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner objected by filing Objection to 12 Jan. 06 Report and

Recommendation and filed a Motion to Attach Facts, requesting the court to consider the

Case 3:05-cv-01051-L-POR Document 28 Filed 07/09/07 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

27

28

2 05CV1051

attached exhibits. On July 3, 2006 the court issued an Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to

Attach Facts and Remanding Case to Magistrate Judge for Further Briefing, and gave Petitioner

an opportunity to show why his Petition was not untimely filed or why either statutory or

equitable tolling extends the statute of limitations in his case. After additional briefing, Judge

Porter issued a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Re Granting in

Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Report and

Recommendation”), which recommends denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss to the extent it

is based on exhaustion of state court remedies and fugitive disentitlement doctrine, and grating it

on the statute of limitations basis. Petitioner did not timely file objections. For the reasons

which follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, Respondents’ motion to dismiss

is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, and the Petition is DISMISSED as

untimely.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties

for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The

“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying

Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

The Report and Recommendation sets February 20, 2007 as the last date to file

objections. Petitioner did not timely object. On June 19, 2007 he submitted a Motion to Vacate

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:05-cv-01051-L-POR Document 28 Filed 07/09/07 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

27

28

1 Petitioner also submitted an Appeal to District Court of Magistrate Decision,

which refers to the October 10, 2006 Order Denying Without Prejudice Petitioner’s Request for

Appointment of Counsel. This pleading was rejected for failure to include a proof of service. 

Furthermore, it was untimely pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).

3 05CV1051

and a Petition for Permission to Augment Fact.1 These pleadings were rejected for failure to

include a proof of service.

Upon his guilty plea in state court to felony shoplifting (petty theft) with a prior,

Petitioner was sentenced on April 10, 1997 to one year in custody and three years’ probation. 

He did not file his federal petition until May 12, 2005. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) governs this case because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996. 

Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 2003). The AEDPA provides for a one-year statute of

limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Generally, the one-year period begins to run on “the date on

which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time

to seek such review.” Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A). For the reasons stated in the Report and

Recommendation, no exceptions or tolling are applicable in this case, the petition was untimely

filed, and must therefore be dismissed.

The court concurs with the magistrate judge’s analysis of Respondents’ exhaustion and

fugitive disentitlement arguments, and finds they are insufficient to support dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. 

Respondents’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED insofar as it is based on the statute of limitations,

and DENIED in all other respects. The Petition is DISMISSED as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01051-L-POR Document 28 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 3