Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00608/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00608-1/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

- 1 - 08cv0608

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY T. GUILLEN

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv0608 JM(CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, California

Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

On June 29, 2009, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo entered a Report and

Recommendation granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition for writ of habeas corpus as

time barred (“R & R”). The R & R, expressly incorporated herein, thoroughly and thoughtfully

analyzed Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner has filed objections to the R & R (“Objections”). Respondent

did not file a reply to the Objections. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for

decision without oral argument. 

In his Objections, Petitioner sets forth essentially the same arguments raised in the Petition.

He argues that the ten year extension to his sentence under Cal.Penal Code §667(a)(1) is not subject

to the one year limitation period of 28 U.S.C. §2241(d)(1) because the California Supreme Court order

denying his petition for review of sentence advised him that “because this issue is a matter outside the

record on appeal, the proper remedy is by way of petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” (Doc. No. 8,

Exh. 2). Because Petitioner’s ten year extension was an integral part of his sentence, the one year

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-00608-JM-CAB Document 11 Filed 08/28/09 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 - 08cv0608

limitation period of 28 U.S.C. §2241 applies to bar Petitioner’s claims. 

In sum, the court denies the Objections and adopts the R & R in its entirety. The Clerk of

Court is instructed to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:09-cv-00608-JM-CAB Document 11 Filed 08/28/09 Page 2 of 2