Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00693/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00693-6/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

DANIEL TREGLIA,

Petitioner,

v.

WALKER, Warden

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00693 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. 18]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On November 20, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

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

with prejudice. This 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. 

On December 6, 2007, Petitioner filed timely 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, including Petitioner's

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

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

Case 1:07-cv-00693-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 01/17/08 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

2

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Petitioner contends in the objections that 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)’s one year statute of limitations is unconstitutional. There is no authority for

Petitioner’s position. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9 Cir. 2003) (finding no th

serious constitutional problem with statute of limitations for purposes of constitutional-doubt

canon of statutory construction); Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9 Cir. 2000) (holding th

that section 2244(d) is not per se violation of Suspension Clause). In addition, the fact some

claims were not raised in the state court until after section 2244(d)’s statute of limitations had run

is not relevant because the running of Petitioner’s statue of limitations began when his conviction

was final and not when the claims were to the state court’s for review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

(listing events that trigger statute of limitations). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 20, 2007, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition as time-barred is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice; 

4. The Court further declines to issue a certificate of appealability, as it does not find

that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition was properly

dismissed, with prejudice, as time-barred. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); and, 

5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. This terminates this

action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00693-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 2