Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02378/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02378-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTEBAN SANDOVAL,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-cv-2378-BAS(PCL)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS

ENTIRETY;

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND

(3) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME

[ECF Nos. 13, 23, 35]

v.

WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,

Respondent.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2014, Petitioner Esteban Sandoval, a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that found him guilty of

constructive possession of a deadly weapon, which resulted in the loss of 360 days of

earned custody credits. On February 10, 2015, Respondent Warren L. Montgomery

- 1 - 14cv2378

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 36 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 3
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

filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 13.) Petitioner opposed (ECF No. 21.)

On July 29, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewisissued a Report

and Recommendation (“R&R” or “report”) recommending that this Court grant

Respondent’s motion to dismiss and enter judgment dismissing the petition with

prejudice for failure to file within the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 23.)

Judge Lewis ordered any objections to be filed no later than August 21, 2015, and any

replies be filed no later than September 18, 2015. Id.

TheCourt originally adopted Judge Lewis’ R&Rin a September 23, 2015 Order,

and noted that Petitioner failed to object. (ECF No. 24.) That Order was subsequently

vacated when it became clear that an apparent docketing error prevented timely

consideration of a motion for extension of time previously filed by Petitioner. (ECF

No. 30.) Upon setting aside the judgment, the Court granted Petitioner an additional

30 days to file any objections to Judge Lewis’s R&R. The new deadline was November

30, 2015. Id. The Court also advised Petitioner that given his history of failing to take

action despite being granted numerous extensions, “any future requests for extensions

of time will be viewed with the utmost circumspection.” (ECF No. 30, 3:12-14.)

Petitioner failed to file and serve his objections by the November 30, 2015

deadline and requested another extension of time. (ECF No. 32.) The Court granted

another 30-day extension, setting a deadline of January 19, 2016. (ECF No. 33.)

Petitioner again failed to file and serve objections, and requested yet another extension.

(ECF No. 35.) The Court finds no good cause for another extension under the

circumstances. Accordingly, the motion for extension is DENIED. (ECF No. 35.)

II. DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he

statute makesit clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States

- 2 - 14cv2378

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 36 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 3
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

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original);

see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding

that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the

magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves

accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” 

Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010)

(Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed

objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).

In this case, no objections have been filed, and no more extensions of time will

be granted. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on the basis that it is

unopposed. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de

novo review of the petition, Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Petitioner’s opposition,

and Judge Lewis’ R&R, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the report in its

entirety (ECF No. 23), and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13). 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court further ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to enter

judgment dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to file within the applicable

statute of limitation in accordance with Judge Lewis’ recommendation. 

Moreover, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Petitioner has not made this showing. Because reasonable jurists would not find the

Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court DECLINES to issue

a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 31, 2016

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv2378

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 36 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 3