Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00310/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00310-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. HASLEY, SR., Civil No. 15-cv-310-H (DHB)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 7.]

(2) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND

[Doc. No. 16.]

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; and

KAMALA HARRIS,

Respondents.

On February 12, 2015, Petitioner Joseph A. Hasley, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No.

1.) On April 29, 2015, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition

as untimely under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Doc.

No. 7.) On July 1, 2015, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondents’ motion to

dismiss. (Doc. No. 15.) 

On July 29, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation,

-1- 15cv0310

Case 3:15-cv-00310-H-DHB Document 21 Filed 10/06/15 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

recommending that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition as untimely under

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 16.) On September 17, 2015,

Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s R & R. (Doc. No. 20.)

After due consideration of the parties’ papers, the Court adopts the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation, grants Respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition

for writ of habeas corpus, and dismisses the petition. Here, Petitioner filed his federal

habeas petition more than eight years after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. 

(See Doc. No. 16 at 4.) See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Additionally, the Court declines to

issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 485 (2000) (“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural

grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim,” the Court

should issue a certificate of appealability only if “jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2015

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2- 15cv0310

Case 3:15-cv-00310-H-DHB Document 21 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2