Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02334/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02334-2/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

1 The court notes that any objections to the R & R were to be filed by August 30, 2006. Under the

prison mailbox rule, the earliest the objections could be deemed filed is September 1, 2006, as that is the date

Petitioner signed the objections. Accordingly, the objections were untimely.

- 1 - 04cv2334

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHAM SANABRIA

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 04cv2334 JM(WMc)

ORDER VACATING CLERK’S

JUDGMENT OF SEPTEMBER 13,

2006; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

vs.

DERRALL G. ADAMS, Warden

Respondent.

The September 13, 2006 Judgment

Without having received any objections to Magistrate Judge McCurine’s Report

and Recommendation re: Dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Time

Barred (“R & R”), on September 7, 2006 the court adopted the R & R in its entirety.

Shortly thereafter the court received Petitioner’s untimely objections on September 18,

2006.1

 Even though the objections were untimely, the court considered the objections

and, on September 20, 2006, the court entered another order adopting the R & R. 

In its September 20, 2006 order, the court inadvertently failed to vacate the

September 13, 2006 clerk’s judgment. The court hereby vacates that judgment to

permit Petitioner an enlargement of time of about eight days to file a Notice of Appeal

/ / / 

Case 3:04-cv-02334-JM-WMC Document 35 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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 - 04cv2334

should he so desire. In sum, the court vacates the clerk’s judgment of September 13,

2006 and notes that the time for filing a Notice of Appeal began to run upon entry of

the clerk’s judgment on September 21, 2006. 

Certificate of Appealability

Petitioner raises three arguments in support of his motion for a certificate of

appealability to appeal the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as time

barred. First, Petitioner contends that the court did not consider his objections. As set

forth above, this argument misconstrues the record. The objections were considered.

Second, Petitioner contends that he was entitled to additional tolling of the statute of

limitations pursuant to California Rule of Court 28. This argument is not persuasive as

Petitioner’s conviction became final 40 days after the California Court of Appeal filed

its opinion. Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir. 2002). Even accepting

Petitioner’s argument, the 30 day period of California Rule of Court 28 is less than the

40 day period which was applied in his case. As such, Petitioner cannot demonstrate

any prejudice. Finally, Petitioner contends that an additional period of equitable tolling

should apply to his case because the prison law library was inadequate. This argument

was raised and addressed in the R & R. 

In sum, Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied.

See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2006

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:04-cv-02334-JM-WMC Document 35 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2