Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02280/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02280-3/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

 The Amended Local Rules have been in effect since December 1, 2009, and former L.R. 1

78-230 is now simply designated as L.R. 230. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDERSON P. THURSTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2280-LKK-GGH P

vs.

JAMES YATES, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On January 29, 2010, the undersigned recommended respondent’s motion to

dismiss the instant habeas petition as barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations, filed on March

30, 2009, be granted. Nevertheless, respondent has filed a motion for reconsideration directed to

the undersigned, pursuant to L.R. 78-230(k). In the pending Findings and Recommendations 1

(docket # 27), pp. 4, 6, it was noted that respondent had failed to raise an argument for statutory

untimeliness under Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807 (2005), based on

petitioner’s initial state habeas petition having been denied by the California Supreme Court with

a citation to In re: Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (1993), but that this court would not raise it for

respondent. Respondent now seeks to have the court permit belated incorporation of a Pace

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 02/17/10 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

untimeliness argument “in order to preserve the issue,” but without offering any explanation as to

why the argument was not made appropriately within the motion, how the failure to include it

should be construed as anything other than a waiver of any such argument for purposes of the

motion, and how it would be anything but unduly prejudicial to petitioner pro se to allow

retroactive incorporation of an argument which would necessarily obviate any ability by

petitioner to respond. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s motion for reconsideration, filed

on February 5, 2010 (docket # 28), is denied. 

DATED: February 17, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

thur2280.rcn

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2