Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00124-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH EDWARD BARAJAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

R. J. SUBIA, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00124 AWI NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #20]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

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 August 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition be GRANTED and the petition be

DISMISSED with prejudice for violating the one-year statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge

further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On September 13, 2007, Petitioner timely filed objections to the Findings and

Case 1:07-cv-00124-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 10/03/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Recommendation. Petitioner contends his petition is timely because he qualifies for statutory and

equitable tolling. First, Petitioner argues the limitations period should not commence until

January 27, 2004, which was the date he first discovered the factual predicate for his claims pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1)(D). However as correctly discussed by the Magistrate Judge, the objective

standard in determining when time begins to run under § 2241(d)(1)(D) is “when the prisoner knows

(or through diligence could discover) the important facts, not when the prisoner recognizes their

legal significance.” Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150 (9 Cir.2001), quoting, Owens v. Boyd, 235 th

F.3d 356, 359 (7 Cir.2000). In this case, Petitioner knew the predicate facts well before January 27, th

2004. In fact, as demonstrated by the letter he submits from his state appellate counsel, he knew the

predicate facts even before the direct appeal. In his objections, Petitioner alleges he advised his

appellate counsel that he desired to raise the claim he now raises on direct appeal, but counsel

advised him that these “other issues you wrote about cannot be raised on appeal.” See Exhibit A,

Objections. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly found the statute of limitations commenced

on February 12, 2003, following the conclusion of direct review.

Petitioner further alleges he should be granted statutory and/or equitable tolling from the time

he first attempted to file his state petition on February 9, 2004. Nevertheless, even if the Court were

to grant tolling from this date until the final state petition was denied, the instant petition would

remain untimely. As of February 9, 2004, 362 days of the one-year limitations period had expired.

Provided Petitioner is given tolling from this date until 90 days after the petition for review was

denied by the California Supreme Court, to wit, April 18, 2006, Petitioner had 3 days remaining in

the limitations period. Therefore, the limitations period would expire on April 21, 2006, which is

nine months before he filed the instant petition. Thus, the instant petition is still untimely.

Petitioner also alleges he should be given equitable tolling because his appellate counsel told

him to wait until after his direct review became final before pursuing his legal remedies with respect

to the additional claims. Nevertheless as set forth above, Petitioner delayed almost one year before

pursuing his remedies in state court and then another 9 months before coming to federal court.

Petitioner makes no showing why these time periods should be excused. Under these circumstances,

Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling.

Case 1:07-cv-00124-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 10/03/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 28, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00124-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3