Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00337/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00337-1/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

C. C. RIDER THOMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

RICHARD J. KIRKLAND, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0337 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #8]

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 May 18, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED with prejudice for violating the statute of limitations set

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 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 May 26, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-00337-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 06/16/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

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. 

Based on Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause, the Magistrate Judge concluded

the statute of limitations expired at the latest in October of 2003. In his objections, Petitioner argues 

the statute should also be tolled from June 27, 2003, to November 30, 2003, for the time he spent in

administrative segregation. Petitioner’s argument does not save the petition from being untimely. If

this period of time were equitably tolled, the statute of limitations would have expired at the latest on

April 4, 2004. Petitioner did not file his petition until March 11, 2005, almost a year later. Thus,

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 May 18, 2005, 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: June 15, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00337-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 2