Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00126/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00126-2/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

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

 In his objections, petitioner’s counsel argues that he should be allowed to “amend” his 1

petition to raise an actual innocence claim in order to overcome respondent’s argument that this

action is barred by the statute of limitations. Were respondent arguing that petitioner’s claims

were procedurally defaulted, a claim of actual innocence would be an appropriate argument for

petitioner to raise. However, actual innocence is not a “defense” to claims that are barred by the

statute of limitations. See Faith v. Clarke, CIV S-00-0493 DFL GGH P, order of Dec. 8, 2003, at

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD DEWAYNE HUNT, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0126 DFL GGH P

vs.

CLAUDE E. FINN, et al., 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 9, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:05-cv-00126-DFL-GGH Document 23 Filed 03/17/06 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 21-22. 

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 9, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Respondent’s June 10, 2005, motion to dismiss is granted.

DATED: 3/16/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00126-DFL-GGH Document 23 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2