Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01519/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01519-1/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

17-cv-1519-JAH-MDD 

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

BYRON THREAT,

Petitioner,

v.

SHAWN HATTON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17-cv-1519-JAH-MDD

ORDER ADOPTING THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; 

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND 

DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

HABEAS PETITION AS UNTIMELY

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Shawn Hatton’s (“Respondent”) Motion to Dismiss 

Byron Threat’s (“Petitioner”) writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 4]. The Honorable Mitchell 

D. Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a report and recommendation 

(“report”) to this Court, recommending Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. See

Doc. No. 7. No objections to the magistrate judge’s report were filed. After careful 

consideration of the parties’ submissions, along with the entire record of this matter, this 

Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report in its entirety, GRANTS Respondent’s 

Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as 

untimely.

Case 3:17-cv-01519-JAH-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-1519-JAH-MDD 

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

BACKGROUND1

On July 25, 2003, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to first–degree murder in violation of 

California Penal Code Section § 187(a). On September 8, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced 

by the San Diego County Superior Court to fifty–five years to life. On July 12, 2004, the 

California Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and no further direct appeals to the 

California Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court were made. On April 17, 2009, 

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court which was eventually denied. On 

July 20, 2016, Petitioner filed another habeas petition with the Superior Court, which was

also denied. Petitioner filed a habeas petition with the California Court of Appeal which 

was denied on January 9, 2017. The California Supreme Court denied the petition on April 

12, 2017. Finally, Petitioner filed the operative petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court on July 27, 2017. Upon receiving Respondent’s Motion 

to Dismiss, Judge Dembin submitted a report to this Court, recommending the petition be 

dismissed as time–barred. Petitioner has filed no objections to the report. 

DISCUSSION

I. Scope of Review

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is set forth in Title 28, United States Code, § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, 

the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to 

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. It is well-settled, under Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court may adopt those parts of 

a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not 

clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985). 

 

1 The underlying facts set forth in the magistrate judge’s report, to which plaintiff presents no objection, 

are adopted in toto, and referenced as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:17-cv-01519-JAH-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-1519-JAH-MDD 

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

II. Analysis

Judge Dembin found that Petitioner’s judgment became final, under AEDPA, on 

August 21, 2004, forty days after the Court of Appeal entered judgment affirming his 

conviction. Thus, without the benefit of equitable tolling, Petitioner had no later than 

August 21, 2005 to file a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Ultimately, Judge Dembin

found the amended habeas petition time-barred under AEDPA because (1) Petitioner is not 

entitled to a later start date pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United 

States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015); (2) Petitioner is not entitled to enough statutory tolling to 

make his petition timely; and (3) Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. The Court 

received no objections to the magistrate judge’s report, nor did Petitioner request additional 

time in order to file objections. As such, this Court may adopt the magistrate judge’s 

findings and conclusions presented in the report as long as they are not clearly erroneous.

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153. This Court’s careful de novo review of the record reflects 

the magistrate judge presented a cogent analysis and, thus, finds the magistrate judge’s 

findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district 

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 

to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless there is “a substantial 

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

standard, the petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . .

. the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 

were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’ ” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 475 (2000) (citation omitted). For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation and incorporated by reference herein, the Court finds that this 

standard has not been met and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability 

in this case.

Case 3:17-cv-01519-JAH-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-1519-JAH-MDD 

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented 

in the report and recommendation are ADOPTED in their 

entirety;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the instant petition is 

GRANTED;

3. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and

4. Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2018 

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01519-JAH-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4