Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00859/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00859-6/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00859 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND DECLINING TO

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 26]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On November 15, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. This 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. 

On December 14, 2007, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:07-cv-00859-AWI -DLB Document 28 Filed 01/17/08 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

2

In the objections, Petitioner appears to contend that the Magistrate Judge used the wrong

accrual date, or starting point, to begin running the statute of limitations. The one year statute

of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions reads as follows:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State

action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if

the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by

the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court

and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). While the objections contend the Magistrate Judge erred in using

Section 2244(d)(1)(A) to begin running the statute of limitations, Petitioner has not alleged that

his statute began running pursuant to any of the events set forth in Section 2244(d)(1)(B), Section

2244(d)(1)(C), or Section 2244(d)(1)(D). While not entirely clear, it appears that Petitioner's

contention is that the statute of limitations began to run on the date he either filed his first

petition containing the ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the Superior Court or the date

the Supreme Court denied review on these claims. Petitioner points out that his claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel were not raised in his direct appeal, and these claims were first

raised in Petitioner’s state habeas corpus petitions, which he pursued to the California Supreme

Court. Contrary to Petitioner's position, the statute of limitations does not begin to run on the

date a claim is first presented to a California court or the date a claim becomes exhausted by the

California Supreme Court denying the claim. Thus, Petitioner's objections present no grounds

for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 15, 2007, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred is GRANTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice; 

Case 1:07-cv-00859-AWI -DLB Document 28 Filed 01/17/08 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

3

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminating this action;

and,

4. The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (in order to obtain a COA,

petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling. In the present case, the Court does not find that jurists of

reason would not find it debatable whether the petition was properly dismissed,

with prejudice, as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner has not

made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00859-AWI -DLB Document 28 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3