Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00061/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00061-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL A. DIAZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

CHRIS CHRONES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00061 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #14]

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 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

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

WITH PREJUDICE for violating the statute of limitations, failure to exhaust state remedies, and

failure to state a cognizable federal claim. 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. 

Case 1:07-cv-00061-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 09/20/07 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

On September 7, 2007, Petitioner filed 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 and having considered the

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

supported by the record and proper analysis. In the objections, Petitioner appears to argue that the

California Supreme Court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition was final at a date later than that

used by the Magistrate Judge. The Ninth Circuit held in 2002 that the statutory tolling ended thirty

days after the California Supreme Court's denial of the final habeas petition was filed because that

was when the denial became "final" under the former California Rule of Court 24. Allen v. Lewis,

295 F.3d 1046, 1046 (9 Cir. 2002) (en banc); Bunney v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973, 974 (9 Cir.2001). th th

However, the rationale of Allen v. Lewis only applies to denials the California Supreme Court filed

before January 1, 2003. On January 1, 2003, the California Supreme Court made clear that its

orders denying petitions for writ of habeas corpus within its original jurisdiction are final on filing.

See Cal. Rule of Court 29.4(b)(2)(C). Because Petitioner’s petition was filed after January 1, 2003,

the Magistrate Judge used the correct date to determine when the California Supreme Court’s

decision was final.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 24, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00061-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2