Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01464/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01464-1/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

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 - 09cv1464-WQH-CAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SON NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv1464-WQH-CAB

ORDER

vs.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

11) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, recommending that

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8) be granted and that judgment be entered

dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) for failure to file within the

applicable statute of limitations.

I. Background

On October 28, 1992, Petitioner Son Nguyen was sentenced to life with the possibility

of parole for two counts of robbery kidnap, one count of auto theft, and the use of a firearm.

(Pet. at 2, Doc. # 1). 

On August 7, 2006, the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) found Petitioner

unsuitable for early release on parole. (Lodgment # 1 at 48). 

On April 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Diego

Superior Court, challenging the Board’s August 7, 2006 denial of parole. (Lodgment # 2). On

October 9, 2007, the Superior Court denied the petition. (Lodgment # 3). On March 18, 2008,

Petitioner signed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was filed in the California Court

Case 3:09-cv-01464-WQH-CAB Document 12 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 On the same day, July 6, 2009, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

in this Court challenging a denial of parole by the Board on August 14, 2007. See Nguyen v.

Powers, S.D. Cal. Case No. 09-cv-1465-WQH-CAB, Doc. # 1. On June 25, 2010, this Court

entered judgment in that case. See id., Doc. # 18.

- 2 - 09cv1464-WQH-CAB

of Appeal, challenging the Board’s August 7, 2006 denial of parole. (Lodgment # 4). On

September 19, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied the petition. (Lodgment # 5). On January

24, 2009, Petitioner signed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was filed in the

California Supreme Court. (Lodgment # 6). On June 10, 2009, the California Supreme Court

summarily denied the petition. (Lodgment # 7).

On July 6, 2009, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court, challenging the Board’s August 7, 2006 denial of parole.1

 (Doc.

# 1).

On December 4, 2009, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition and a Notice

of Lodgment. (Doc. # 8). Respondent contends that the Petition is barred by the one-year

statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

On January 4, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response

to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 9). Petitioner requested an extension “up until February 6,

2010 in which to prepare and file his ... Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the

writ.” (Doc. # 9 at 2).

On January 6, 2010, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of

Time and permitted Petitioner to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss on or before

February 6, 2010. (Doc. # 10).

The docket reflects that Petitioner has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

On June 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Doc.

# 11). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Petition was filed after the expiration of the

statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Report and Recommendation

concludes:

For the reasons discussed above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the

motion to dismiss be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED with prejudice.

Case 3:09-cv-01464-WQH-CAB Document 12 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4
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 - 09cv1464-WQH-CAB

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is

submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than July 22, 2010, any party to this action

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The

document should be captioned ‘Objections to Report and Recommendation.’

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than ten days after being

served with the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal

of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

(Doc. # 11 at 7).

The docket reflects that neither party filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections

are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this

case, and this Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Petition was not timely filed

in this Court because “the delays between each round of Petitioner’s state court habeas

petitions were unreasonable, [and therefore] AEDPA’s one-year limitation period ended on

December 9, 2008 even allowing for [statutory] tolling during each petition.” Doc. # 11 at 6

(citing, inter alia, Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010)). The Magistrate

Case 3:09-cv-01464-WQH-CAB Document 12 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 09cv1464-WQH-CAB

Judge correctly concluded that “Petitioner has not asserted any basis for equitable tolling of

the limitations period,” “[n]or is there any evidence of conduct by the State or by Respondent

which impeded Petitioner’s ability to file his federal petition in a timely manner.” Id.; cf.

Holland v. Florida, --- U.S. ---, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (“[28 U.S.C.] § 2244(d) is

subject to equitable tolling ... only if [petitioner] shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely

filing.”) (quotation omitted). The Court adopts all portions of the Report and

Recommendation.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district

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

the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “[A]

[certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows ... that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct

in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and in this Order, the Court

concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in

dismissing the Petition as untimely. The Court denies a certificate of appealability.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 11) is

ADOPTED in its entirety, and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8) is GRANTED. The Clerk of

the Court shall enter judgment dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1)

for failure to file within the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

DATED: August 9, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01464-WQH-CAB Document 12 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4