Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01945/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01945-3/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 10cv1945 AJB (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVIS BONDURANT

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 10cv1945 AJB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; AND

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 28.]

On September 8, 2010, Petitioner Travis Bondurant, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California. (Dkt. No. 1) On September 15, 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern

District of California. (Dkt. No. 2 .) On September 22, 2010, the petition was dismissed without

prejudice with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 6.) On November 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a first amended

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No. 12.) On February 2, 2011, Respondents filed a motion to

dismiss the first amended petition as being time-barred. (Dkt. No. 28.) Petitioner filed an opposition on

February 25, 2011. (Dkt. No. 35.) On March 29, 2011, Magistrate Judge Adler filed a report and

recommendation recommending that the petition be dismissed with prejudice as being time-barred. 

(Dkt. No. 45.) On April 18, 2011, Petitioner filed an objection to the report and recommendation. (Dkt.

No. 53.) 

Case 3:10-cv-01945-AJB-JMA Document 65 Filed 08/05/11 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

2 10cv1945 AJB (JMA)

A. Review of Report and Recommendation

“The district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or

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

Procedure 72(b); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence

of a timely objection, the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983). 

B. Discussion

The report and recommendation concluded that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was timebarred by the one year statute of limitations. The court determined that statutory tolling could not revive

the limitations period that had already ended and that Petitioner had not shown that equitable tolling was

applicable. Although Petitioner filed an objection, he has not provided any legal argument or factual

support disputing the analysis in the report and recommendation. He only states that he was subject to

“duress, coercion, fraud, and undue influence to not file an appeal nor do my petitions timely.” These

arguments were already considered in the report and recommendation. Moreover, he has not presented

any supporting facts to support such an allegation. The report and recommendation discussed Petitioner’s claim of being subject to duress, fraud, coercion and undue influence in determining whether

Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling. The Court concluded that despite these allegations, Petitioner

was able to file four state court petitions for writ of habeas corpus, an appeal of his criminal conviction,

file a “coherent First Amended Petition and opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss within the

deadlines set by the Court.” (Dkt. 45 at 9.) The Magistrate Judge acknowledged Petitioner’s mental

diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type; however, the court concluded that his condition was not of

such severity that Petitioner was unable to rationally or factually understand the need to timely file a

habeas petition. (Id.) After having reviewed the report and recommendation and the objections, the

Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge properly applied the law to this case and adopts the report and

recommendation in full.

/ / / /

/ / / /

Case 3:10-cv-01945-AJB-JMA Document 65 Filed 08/05/11 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

3 10cv1945 AJB (JMA)

C. Certificate of Appealability

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of

appealability should be issued only where the petition presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability “should issue when the

prisoner shows . . . that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

of the denial of a constitutional right and 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). 

Based on the Court’s review of the petition, the Court finds no issues are debatable among jurists

of reason and that no jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED as

to the claims in the petition. 

Conclusion

After having reviewed the report and recommendation, and the objections, the Court ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS Respondents’ motion to dismiss the

petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice and DISMISSES the petition. The Court also DENIES

a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01945-AJB-JMA Document 65 Filed 08/05/11 Page 3 of 3