Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02430/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02430-6/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 

16cv2430-LAB (BLM) 

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 

CEDRIC E. WALKER, 

Petitioner,

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16cv2430-LAB (BLM) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY 

 

 Petitioner Cedric Walker was given multiple extensions of time to prepare his 

objections to Magistrate Judge Barbara Major’s report and recommendation (the “R&R”). 

Most recently, he was reminded that his objections would have to explain why his claims 

were not time-barred, given that he had no habeas petition pending in state court between 

2000 and 2015. (See Docket no. 39.) He was also given other specific guidance about what 

he must include in his objections. 

Walker without leave submitted an amended petition, which the Court rejected for 

filing. The amended petition merely reiterated Walker’s claims. It did not attempt to show 

he was entitled to tolling for the period between 2002 and 2015, and did not address the 

R&R’s recommended dispositions of his other requests, other than potentially his pending 

motion for leave to file an amended petition. The only mention of timeliness was on pages 

1 and 2, where Walker addressed California courts’ power to consider late petitions raising 

Case 3:16-cv-02430-LAB-BLM Document 45 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

16cv2430-LAB (BLM) 

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

the issue of illegal sentencing. Even if the proposed amended complaint had been construed 

as Walker’s objections to the R&R, it would have failed. 

Because Walker had not objected to the R&R, the Court reviewed, modified and 

adopted it, and denied Walker’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Walker’s claims arising 

from his criminal conviction are clearly time-barred by many years. His more recent 

claims, which are likely untimely as well, arise under state law and are not cognizable on 

federal habeas review. 

A certificate of appealability is DENIED. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 

(2003). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 28, 2018 

Case 3:16-cv-02430-LAB-BLM Document 45 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2