Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01462-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LEE GURNSEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-01462-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 15)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS

AS MOOT (Docs. 16, 17 & 21)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 23, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the Petition was not filed within the one-year time period provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

(Doc. 15). The Findings and Recommendations was served on Petitioners and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On

February 12, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations. (Doc. 19). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

Case 1:07-cv-01462-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 03/17/08 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

In his objections, Petitioner contends that the Findings and Recommendations is incorrect in stating that he did not 1

file a direct appeal from his 1995 conviction. Petitioner apparently requested that the Central California Appellate Program

("CCAP"), the agency which assisted in providing court-appointed appellate counsel for Petitioner during his direct appeal,

provide the Court with documents substantiating Petitioner's claim vis-a-vis his direct appeal. Although these documents

were not formally filed or lodged with the Court, they were considered. However, they do not affect the Court's analysis of

the statute of limitations issue nor do they alter in any way the conclusion that the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.

The document submitted by CCAP is the unpublished decision of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, dated January

21, 1997, affirming Petitioner's judgment and conviction. The Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations concluded

that the instant petition was filed over ten years after the limitations period expired. That conclusion was based upon the

Court's assumption that, since Petitioner's conviction became final prior to the enactment of the AEDPA on April 26, 1996,

the one-year period terminated on April 26, 1997. However, even if, as the document submitted by CCAP seem to indicate,

Petitioner did file a direct appeal, that appeal process concluded forty days after January 17, 1997, and Petitioner would then

have had one year in which to file his federal petition. In other words, even moving forward the commencement date of the

one-year period because of the direct appeal, the petition is still some nine years late. 

2

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations is supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued January 23, 2008 (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; 

3. All pending motions (Docs. 16, 17, & 21), are DENIED as MOOT; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01462-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2