Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02112/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02112-1/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

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

DWIGHT L. VANZANDT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2112-LAB (DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

G. SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Defendant.

Petitioner Dwight Vanzandt, a prisoner in state custody, filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge David Bartick for report and recommendation. On May 14,

2014, Judge Bartick issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that

the petition be denied as time-barred. The R&R found that a gap of 108 days between

rounds of California state habeas review was unreasonable, and this is well-supported by

binding precedent. The R&R also found that the deficiencies Vanzandt identified in the

prison library system did not amount to an “extraordinary circumstance,” noting that they

hadn’t interfered with his ability to file other cogent habeas petitions in a timely fashion. The

R&R therefore concluded Vanzandt is not entitled to equitable tolling. 

The R&R informed the parties that any objections to the R&R were to be filed by June

6, 2014, and that failure to file objections when due could constitute a waiver of issues not

objected to. No objections were filed. The Court in particular notes that failure to file timely

- 1 - 13cv2112

Case 3:13-cv-02112-LAB-DHB Document 16 Filed 06/16/14 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

objections waives any objection Vanzandt may have had to the R&R’s factual findings, such

as its recitations of the procedural history, its determination that Vanzandt waited 108 days

between rounds of state habeas review, and the fact that prison library conditions did not

cause this delay. The R&R’s account of the procedural history shows that at the end of 108

days, Vanzandt filed two petitions, one in the California Superior Court and one in the

California Supreme Court. In addition to the precedents the R&R relies on regarding

reasonable gaps between rounds of state habeas review, the Court also notes that it is clear

Vanzandt spent some of the 108-day period preparing a second petition. Clearly, the gap

would have been shorter had he simply filed the first petition before he began preparing the

second.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court 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). This

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The "statute makes it 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 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. Because

Vanzandt has waived objections to the R&R’s factual findings, it is clear the 108-day gap

was unreasonable, he is not entitled to tolling, and the petition is time-barred. The petition

is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 13, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv2112

Case 3:13-cv-02112-LAB-DHB Document 16 Filed 06/16/14 Page 2 of 2