Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01047/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01047-3/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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL FREDERICK KRONE,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11cv1047-DMS (WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

DISMISSING PETITION, AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

T.L. GONZALEZ, Warden et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Daniel Frederick Krone, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 challenging his conviction and sentence for assault

and two counts of second degree murder. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

William McCurine, Jr. for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B)

and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). Respondents filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of

limitations. On January 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending to grant Respondents’ motion and dismiss the petition as time barred.

Petitioner timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. Respondents did not file a

response. In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court "shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may

Case 3:11-cv-01047-DMS-WMC Document 31 Filed 02/23/12 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

- 2 -

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). 

Upon de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s objections, the

objections are overruled. Even if Petitioner is given the benefit of equitable tolling, the petition was

filed more than nine years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. (See Report and

Recommendation at 4-5.) To the extent Petitioner argues Respondents’ motion should be denied

based on his actual innocence, an issue not addressed in the Report and Recommendation, his

conclusory assertions do not meet the standard set forth in Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.

2011) (en banc), and Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation

is ADOPTED. Respondents’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED as time

barred. Certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01047-DMS-WMC Document 31 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 2