Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01689/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01689-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL GRAHAM,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12CV1689 JLS (NLS)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; (3)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO RESTORE EQUITABLE

TOLLING; (4) DISMISSING

PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

WITH PREJUDICE; AND (5)

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(ECF No. 9, 18, 19) 

vs.

RALPH M. DIAZ,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Respondent Ralph M. Diaz’s (“Respondent”)

Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Because Petition is Untimely,

(ECF No. 9), Petitioner Samuel Graham’s (“Petitioner”) Motion to Restore Equitable

Tolling, (ECF No. 18), and Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) advising this Court to grant Respondent’s motion, deny

Petitioner’s motion, and dismiss Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition with prejudice,

(R&R, ECF No. 19). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a

district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court

must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection

- 1 - 12cv1689

Case 3:12-cv-01689-JLS-NLS Document 20 Filed 07/03/13 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

is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, Petitioner has failed to file timely objections to Magistrate Judge Stormes’s

R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and

contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge

Stormes’s R&R, (2) GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petitioner’s habeas

petition, (3) DENIES Petitioner’s motion to restore equitable tolling, and (4)

DISMISSES Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition WITH PREJUDICE. 

Finally, this Court is under an obligation to determine whether a certificate of

appealability should issue in this matter and the Court must “indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a

certificate should not be granted.” United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th

Cir.1997); see also Fed. R.App. P. 22(b). A COA is authorized “if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). Where, as here, a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without

reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA “should issue if the

prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right.’ ” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). As both of these components are necessary to

obtain a COA, the Court may resolve either issue first, but resolution of the procedural

issue first has been encouraged by the Supreme Court. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at

- 2 - 12cv1689

Case 3:12-cv-01689-JLS-NLS Document 20 Filed 07/03/13 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

485; see also Petrocelli v. Angelone, 248 F.3d 877, 884 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2001).

Here, as Magistrate Judge Stormes’s R&R makes clear, Petitioner’s habeas

corpus petition was not timely filed. Although Petitioner alleges that the untimely filing

was the result of “egregious attorney misconduct,” such that he should be entitled to

equitable tolling, (Pet.’s Mot. for Equitable Tolling 1, ECF No. 18), the factual

allegations in Petitioner’s motion do not support this conclusion. Petitioner does not

show when he retained his attorney, whether he made any efforts to contact his attorney

either before or after the untimely filing of the habeas petition, or whether he requested

the return of his legal file from his attorney. (See R&R 9, ECF No. 19). In short,

Petitioner does not demonstrate that his attorney’s misconduct made it impossible for

him to file the petition on time. On this showing, no reasonable jurist would find the

Court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas petition to be debatable. Accordingly, the

Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this case. 

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 3, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1689

Case 3:12-cv-01689-JLS-NLS Document 20 Filed 07/03/13 Page 3 of 3