Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05829/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05829-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL A. TAYLOR, JR., )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

P.L. VASQUEZ, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-5829 REC/WMW HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Docs 6, 15, 19] AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR RESPONDENT

On January 23, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed as untimely.

After applying for and receiving an extension of time,

petitioner timely filed objections to the recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record herein de novo. The court

concurs with the Magistrate Judge that the instant petition was

not filed within the one year limitation period because that one

year period was not tolled while the petition he filed in Taylor

v. Vasquez, No. CV-F-02-5024 OWW/DLB was pending in the Eastern

Case 1:04-cv-05829-REC-WMW Document 21 Filed 03/31/06 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

2

District of California and it was not tolled during the time

petitioner filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus in state

court because those petitions were filed after that one year

period had elapsed. The court also concurs with the

recommendation that petitioner has not demonstrated that he is

entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. 

Petitioner points to no extraordinary circumstances beyond his

control which prevented him from timely complying with the

requirements of the law.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The recommendation filed on January 23, 2006 is adopted

in full.

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted and this

action is dismissed.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05829-REC-WMW Document 21 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2