Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00700/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00700-1/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

ABEL RIVERA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14cv700-WQH

(BLM)

vs. ORDER

MONTGOMERY

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 22) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Barbra L. Major,

recommending that this Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Untimely Filed (ECF No. 7).

I. Background

On October 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Report and

Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Untimely Filed. (ECF No. 22).

The Magistrate Judge found that the limitation period for filing the federal habeas

petition had run. The Magistrate Judge determined that: “The California Supreme

Court denied Petitioner’s petition for review on direct appeal on December 2, 2009. 

Petitioner did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court so

the statute of limitations began to run ninety days later on March 2, 2010. Bowen v.

Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999) (limitations period does not begin until

after expiration of ninety-day period for seeking certiorari). Absent tolling, the

- 1 - 14cv700-WQH-PCL

Case 3:14-cv-00700-WQH-BLM Document 23 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 4
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

limitations period expired one year later on March 2, 2011. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (ECF

No. 22 at 8). The Magistrate Judge concluded that: “ Because Petitioner did not file his

federal habeas petition until March 19, 2014, the petition is untimely unless sufficiently

tolled.” Id.

The Magistrate Judge found that “the statute of limitations began to run on March

2, 2010. It was tolled when Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the San Diego Superior

Court on July 20, 2010. 140 days of the limitations period expired, leaving Petitioner

with 225 days in which to timely file a federal petition. The statute remained tolled

from July 20, 2010 ... until June 29, 2012, when the California Court of Appeal denied

Petitioner's petition.” (ECF No. 22 at 10). The Magistrate Judge determined that

“[Petitioner] is not entitled to statutory tolling for the August 23, 2012 petition filed by

Mr. Scott and the November 30, 2012 petition filed by Petitioner.... Because the

California Supreme Court found the petitions were not properly filed...” Id. at 13. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that: “When the statutory tolling ended on June

29, 2012, Petitioner had 225 days remaining in which to file a timely federal habeas

petition. Petitioner did not file his federal petition until 628 days later on March 19,

2014. Thus, unless Petitioner can establish an entitlement to equitable tolling, the

instant petition is time-barred.” Id.

The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. 

The Magistrate Judge determined that “Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling for

the time the August 23, 2012 petition filed by Mr. Scott and the November 30, 2012

petition filed by Petitioner were pending because neither petition was properly filed.” 

Id. at 15. “[T]the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations expired on February 9, 2013,”

and, therefore, “the deadline for Petitioner to file his federal petition expired well

before he was placed in the ASU on April 8, 2013 and August 27, 2013 so his time in

the ASU and the time spent gathering his legal materials cannot justify equitable

tolling.” Id.. “Moreover, Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to

equitable tolling for the time that he spent in the ASU.” Id. “He was placed in the ASU

- 2 - 14cv700-WQH-PCL

Case 3:14-cv-00700-WQH-BLM Document 23 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 4
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

on August 27, 2014 because of his possible involvement and willful participation in a

riot involving ‘a large amount of Hispanic Inmates and 5 identified White Inmates.’”

Id. “Therefore, Petitioner’s time in the ASU was not ‘some extraordinary circumstance

[that] stood in his way,’ but the result of his own misconduct.” Id. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that: “...Petitioner has failed to establish that he

is entitled to equitable tolling. Thus, the instant petition is untimely and this Court

RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED.” Id. at 16.

The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner is not entitled to have his claim

considered due to actual innocence. The Magistrate Judge determined that “Plaintiff’s

arguments regarding the contents of the declaration ... do not constitute new evidence

and the declaration is not reliable evidence of an alleged constitutional error that

probably resulted in the conviction of an innocent person.” Id. at 17. The Magistrate

Judge concluded that “Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to have his untimely

petition hear on the merits under Schulp.” Id. at 18.

To date, neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to a report and recommendation, “[a] judge

of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the report and

recommendation de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003). A district court

may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the Court has

reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the

- 3 - 14cv700-WQH-PCL

Case 3:14-cv-00700-WQH-BLM Document 23 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Magistrate Judge correctly found that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s

Petition as Untimely Filed must be granted because Petitioner is time-barred. The Court

adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

III. Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue

an appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents

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

It must appear that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

petitioner’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000). The Court finds that Petitioner has raised colorable, nonfrivolous

arguments. The Court grants a certificate of appealability.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22)

is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. 

(ECF No. 1). A certificate of appealability is GRANTED. 

DATED: December 16, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv700-WQH-PCL

Case 3:14-cv-00700-WQH-BLM Document 23 Filed 12/16/14 Page 4 of 4