Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01950/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01950-2/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 

17cv1950-MMA (WVG) 

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 

VICTOR EUGENE AUSTIN, JR., 

Petitioner,

v. 

PFEIFFER, et al., 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 17cv1950-MMA (WVG) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

[Doc. No. 18] 

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS;

[Doc. No. 15] 

DISMISSING AMENDED PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 12] 

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 On February 26, 2018, Petitioner Victor Eugene Austin, Jr., a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 12. Respondent moves to dismiss the amended petition on 

Case 3:17-cv-01950-MMA-WVG Document 19 Filed 01/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17cv1950-MMA (WVG) 

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

the primary ground that Petitioner is barred from seeking federal habeas relief by the 

applicable statute of limitations. See Doc. No. 15; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner filed a 

response in opposition to the motion. See Doc. No. 17. The matter was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for preparation of a Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to Title 28, section 636(b)(1), and Civil Local Rule HC.2. 

Judge Gallo has issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that 

this Court grant Respondent’s motion and dismiss the amended petition as untimely. See 

Doc. No. 18. To date, Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and 

Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired.1

 Accordingly, the Court 

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS Respondent’s motion and 

DISMISSES Petitioner’s amended petition with prejudice as untimely. 

For the reasons set forth in detail in Judge Gallo’s Report and Recommendation, 

Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case and enter judgment in favor of 

Respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 11, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

                                               

1

 According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Identification Unit, on 

October 9, 2018, Petitioner was paroled and is now under the supervision of the San Diego County 

Probation Office. Because Judge Gallo issued his Report and Recommendation on November 16, 2018, 

and the record continues to reflect that Petitioner’s current address is Kern Valley State Prison in 

Delano, California, it is unclear whether Petitioner received the copy of the Report and 

Recommendation served on him by the Clerk of Court via U.S. Mail. However, to date, the Clerk has 

not received any returned mail from the institution. And, pursuant to this District’s Civil Local Rule 

83.11, as a pro se party, it is Petitioner’s responsibility to “keep the court and opposing parties advised 

as to current address.” SD CivLR 83.11.b. 

Case 3:17-cv-01950-MMA-WVG Document 19 Filed 01/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2