Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00793/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00793-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR GARZA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DARREL ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00793 AWI-TAG (HC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 10)

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. 10). 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 

March 4, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. 

(Doc. 11). 

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-00793-AWI-TAG Document 12 Filed 03/17/08 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

2

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. In the objections, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because

of medications he took until early 2001. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the limitations

period is subject to equitable tolling if “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control”

have made it impossible for the petition to be filed on time. Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163

F.3d 530, 541 (9 Cir. 1998), citing Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9 Cir. th th

1996), cert denied, 522 U.S. 814 (1997). Here, it is unnecessary to determine if olanzapine rendered

Petitioner unable to complete his habeas corpus petition within the limitations period. By his own

admission, Petitioner was off this medication during late 2001 and early 2002, when Petitioner's

statute of limitations ran. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 11, 2008 (Doc. 10), 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 14, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00793-AWI-TAG Document 12 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2