Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00523/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00523-1/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 

17cv0523-MMA (JLB) 

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 

CHARLES MCCRAW, 

Petitioner,

v. 

N. MCDOWELL, Warden, 

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv0523-MMA (JLB) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

[Doc. No. 10] 

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 12] 

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner Charles McCraw (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 

a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“petition”) pursuant to Title 28 of the United 

States Code, section 2254, challenging his guilty plea conviction for battery on a nonconfined person by a prisoner (Cal. Penal Code § 4501.5). See Doc. No. 1. Petitioner 

asserts two grounds for relief: (1) his conviction does not satisfy the requirements of due 

process; and (2) his 2009 sentence should be reduced pursuant to California Proposition 

47. See id. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition arguing that Ground One of the 

Case 3:17-cv-00523-MMA-JLB Document 13 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17cv0523-MMA (JLB) 

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

petition is untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

(“AEDPA”), and that Ground Two fails to present a federal constitutional claim. See 

Doc. No. 7. Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. See Doc. 

No. 9. The Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Burkhardt for 

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and 

Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Burkhardt has issued a detailed and well-reasoned report 

recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 10. 

Petitioner filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on September 15, 2017. 

See Doc. No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s 

objection and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review 

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . 

. . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

2. Analysis 

Petitioner generally objects to the recommendation that Ground One of his petition 

be dismissed as untimely under AEDPA based on equitable tolling. See Doc. No. 12 at 

2-3. Petitioner contends the Report and Recommendation emphasizes “the time frame of 

the petitioner’s filing.” Id. at 2. Petitioner essentially concedes Ground One of the 

petition is untimely, but argues that he is a “lay prisoner” and should not be treated as if 

“he were trained and astute in the law[.]” Id. at 3. “[A] litigant seeking equitable tolling 

bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights 

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. 

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). However, a pro se petitioner’s “lack of legal 

sophistication” or “ignorance of the law” is not an “extraordinary circumstance 

Case 3:17-cv-00523-MMA-JLB Document 13 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17cv0523-MMA (JLB) 

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

warranting equitable tolling.” Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Thus, Judge Burkhardt correctly determined there is no extraordinary circumstance to 

justify equitable tolling, and as a result, Ground One of the petition is untimely. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration and after conducting a de novo review of the 

pertinent portions of the record, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection and 

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a 

district court that dismisses or denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of 

appealability in its ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 

§ 2254. For the reasons stated above, and those set forth in detail in Judge Burkhardt’s 

Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find 

it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a 

certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection, ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES the petition with prejudice. The 

Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is instructed 

to close the case and enter judgment in favor of Respondent. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 18, 2017 

HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00523-MMA-JLB Document 13 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3