Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00231-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL HERNANDEZ, JR., )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:11-cv-00231-LJO-JLT HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 34)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 32)

ORDER DISMISSING GROUND TWO IN THE

FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 27)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO REFER CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

REGARDING GROUND ONE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 7, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc.

1). On March 25, 2011, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 7). On , 2009,

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. *). Pursuant to Petitioner’s request, the

case was stayed from September 12, 2011 until January 11, 2012, to permit Petitioner to exhaust

state court remedies. Petitioner filed his first amended petition on February 7, 2012, including

1

Case 1:11-cv-00231-LJO-JLT Document 36 Filed 10/05/12 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

27

28

both the original claim and a newly exhausted claim. (Doc. 27). Respondent filed a motion to

dismiss the first amended petition on April 10, 2012, contending that the newly exhausted claim

was untimely. (Doc. 32). On June 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a

Findings and Recommendation recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted

and that the newly exhausted claim be dismissed because as untimely. (Doc. 34). This Findings

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

be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. To date, the parties have not

filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed June 15, 2012, 2009 (Doc. 34), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32), is GRANTED;

3. Ground Two in the first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 27), is

DISMISSED as untimely; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to refer the case back to the Magistrate

Judge for further proceedings regarding Ground One.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00231-LJO-JLT Document 36 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 2