Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00899/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00899-6/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

CARL A. TAYLOR, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

D. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00899 AWI-TAG (HC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 12)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

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 February 11, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the petition was not filed within the one-year time period provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

(Doc. 12). The Findings and Recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On

February 25, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations. (Doc. 14). 

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 Recommendations are supported by the

Case 1:07-cv-00899-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 03/13/08 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

record and proper analysis.

In the objections, Petitioner presents evidence that his reading and writing skills are very

limited. As such, Petitioner argues he is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period. As

explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge, this is not Petitioner's first federal habeas corpus

petition. In Taylor v. Vasquez, 1:04-cv-5829 REC WMW, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss

the petition on statute of limitation period grounds. The Magistrate Judge recommended this motion

be granted. When adopting the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal, District

Court Judge Robert E. Coyle found in relevant part as follows:

The court also concurs with the recommendation that petitioner has not demonstrated

that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Petitioner points to

no extraordinary circumstances beyond his control which prevented him from timely

complying with the requirements of the law.

Judge Coyle then dismissed the petition and directed the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter

judgment for respondent. On March 21, 2006, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment.

Res judicata, or claim preclusion as it is commonly known, bars relitigation in a subsequent

action of any claims that were or could have been raised in an earlier action. Federated Dep't Stores,

Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981). The res judicata doctrine applies when there is: (1) an

identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) an identity or privity between the

parties. Western Radio Services Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997). Issue

preclusion bars re-litigation of issues adjudicated and essential to the final judgment of earlier

litigation between the parties. Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (9th Cir.

1999); Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1520 (9th Cir.1987). The

purpose behind both issue preclusion and claim preclusion is to prevent multiple lawsuits and to

enable parties to rely on the finality of adjudications. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).

Here, the issue of whether Petitioner had filed a habeas corpus petition within the limitation

period and whether Petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling was decided by Judge Coyle when he

dismissed Taylor v. Vaseuez, 1:04-5829 REC WMW. Because the issue of equitable tolling has

already been adjudicated in an earlier habeas corpus petition brought by Petitioner, the court cannot

Case 1:07-cv-00899-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 03/13/08 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

re-litigate this contention in a new action. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 11, 2008 (Doc. 12), are

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close

the file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00899-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 3