Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00018/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00018-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL M. CORJASSO, III,

Petitioner, 2:97-cv-0018-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

ROBERT AYERS, et al.,

Respondents. 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 March 9, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

(“F&Rs”) herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that

any objections to the F&Rs were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed objections to

the F&Rs.

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. As stated in the F&Rs, “counsel’s

oversight and workload do not constitute good cause for the delay in the presentation of

[Petitioner’s new] claims.” (F&Rs at 5.) However, the portion of the F&Rs in which the

Case 2:97-cv-00018-GEB-GGH Document 102 Filed 06/06/06 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

2

Magistrate Judge defines “good cause” by using the same factors that are used to define

“excusable neglect” in Pioneer Inv. Services, v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 394 (1993), a

bankruptcy case, is not adopted, since it is more appropriate to use the same standard a habeas

petitioner must satisfy in a procedural default case. “[T]o show “cause” for a procedural default,

a petitioner ordinarily must show that the default resulted from an objective factor external to the

petitioner which cannot fairly be attributed to him or her.” Hernandez v. Sullivan, 397 F. Supp.

2d 1205, 1206-07 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Here, counsel’s oversight does not constitute cause. Cf.

Johnson v. Sullivan, 2006 WL 37037, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2006) (“[A]n error of appellate

counsel on a discretionary appeal . . . cannot constitute cause to excuse a procedural default in a

federal habeas proceeding. Counsel’s failure to raise the issue cannot be deemed ‘good cause’

for the failure to exhaust state remedies.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 9, 2006, are adopted as stated

above; and

2. Petitioner’s January 24, 2006, motion to stay is denied.

Dated: June 5, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:97-cv-00018-GEB-GGH Document 102 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2