Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00955/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00955-8/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON )

TERMS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-CV-00955 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #19]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

[Doc. #16]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 21, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss for violating the limitations period be GRANTED

and the petition be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the

Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on

all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within ten (10) days of the date of

service of the order. 

Case 1:05-cv-00955-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 03/14/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

On January 5, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections.

Petitioner argues he did not violate the statute of limitations because he is not challenging the

2000, 2002, or 2004 parole board decisions. He now claims he is challenging a 2003 decision.

Petitioner’s arguments are meritless. To begin with, this is the first mention by Petitioner of a 2003

parole board hearing. He failed to state any date whatsoever in his petition. When Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss, Respondent addressed the relevant decisions in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Petitioner

responded to the motion to dismiss by addressing those decisions. Nowhere did he mention or

challenge a 2003 decision. A new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings and

Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), 

overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual

assertions that which could have been but were not presented to the Magistrate Judge should be

given no consideration when the court is deciding whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations

Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam System, Inc. v.

Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). "[A]llowing parties to litigate

fully their case before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a

different theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow,

863 F.2d at 638. 

 Moreover, the 2003 decision Petitioner now references has nothing to do with the claims

Petitioner raised in his petition. The 2003 “decision” he references was merely a hearing granting

Petitioner’s request for postponement of his parole consideration hearing. See Exhibit Q, Petitioner’s

Objections. It is clear Petitioner is attempting to beguile the Court by switching dates as he sees fit in

order to avoid the statute of limitations.

Case 1:05-cv-00955-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 03/14/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 21, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00955-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3