Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06488/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06488-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDOLPHO ALBERTO ALVAREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DAVID L. RUNNELS, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06488-REC-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 14)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 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 March 23, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and

Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be GRANTED, that the Petition be DISMISSED, and that

the Clerk enter judgment. This Report and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order. On April 6, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the

Report and Recommendation.

Case 1:04-cv-06488-REC -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/18/05 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

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. 

The court concurs with the recommendation. Petitioner's assertion

that his present petition is timely because Judge Ishii failed to

advise him "of the stay and abey option" in No. CV-F-02-6636

AWI/HGB HC is without merit. In Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225

(2004), the Supreme Court held that the district court is not

required to make such an advisement. Petitioner contends that the

Ninth Circuit will find that the instant petition is timely because

of Judge Ishii's failure to make this advisement, citing "Brambles

v. Duncan, D.A.R. 5900, Wednesday, June 4, 2003." However,

Brambles v. Duncan, 300 F.3d 1197, amended, 342 F.3d 898 (9th Cir.

2003), was vacated by the Supreme Court at 124 S.Ct. 2903 (2004),

and the Ninth Circuit's opinion was withdrawn at 404 F.3d 1118 (9th

Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed March 23, 2005, is

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus as being filed beyond the one-year statute of

limitations, filed February 17, 2005, is GRANTED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, with

prejudice, for Petitioner's failure to comply with the one-year

limitation period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); and,

4. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06488-REC -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2