Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01339-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO ROMERO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-01339 LJO SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #13]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 10, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition be GRANTED and the petition be

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for violating the statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge

further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The 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. 

Case 1:07-cv-01339-LJO -SMS Document 19 Filed 03/26/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

On March 10, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Petitioner argues he should be granted equitable tolling for the time period between November 2004

through April 2005, because the prison was locked down due to a riot. He states only those with 30-

day court deadlines were allowed access to the law library during this time. The Court is not

persuaded. Even if Petitioner was not allowed physical access to the law library during this time

period, he still had the ability to request legal materials via the prison paging system. Therefore, he

has failed to demonstrate that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and that some extraordinary

circumstance stood in his way. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). 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 and having considered the objections, the Court concludes

that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the points

raised in the objections.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued January 10, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01339-LJO -SMS Document 19 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2