Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01870/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01870-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ANTHONY THROOP,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv1870-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REJECT REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

vs.

RALPH M. DIAZ, warden, et al.,

Respondent.

Petitioner Edward Throop has filed a motion asking the Court to “vacate and reissue” 

Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes’ report and recommendation (the “R&R”). The motion argues

that the R&R is too complicated, poorly-written, and filled with errors for him to file objections

to. Among his complaints, Throop says the R&R confused state trial court orders in his case.

While the Court liberally construes pro se litigants’ pleadings, see Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), construing the motion as Throop’s objections to the R&R

would work to his detriment, because the motion does not point out any substantive error

with the R&R. Treating the motion as Throop’s objections would prevent him from having the

opportunity to file meangful objections.

While Throop might not like the way the R&R was written, or might think it does not

accurately recite the procedural history, the motion does not point out any valid reason why

it should be withdrawn. If Throop thinks the R&R contains any significant errors that could

affect the outcome of the case, he can point them out in his objections. If he thinks the R&R

- 1 - 12cv1870

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 53 Filed 05/09/14 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

has made a mistake in reciting the procedural history, he can correct that too in his

objections.

The R&R was issued February 21. Since then, Throop has twice moved for

extensions of time to file his objections, citing the R&R’s length, his limited access to the law

library, and his need to read and research cases the R&R cites. This motion is dated April

23, and in it for the first time he says the R&R is so badly written and contains so many

factual errors that he cannot respond to it. This suggests that he didn’t thoroughly read and

digest it until well after he received it.

The motion is DENIED and Throop must file his objections to the R&R within the time

permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 8, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1870

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 53 Filed 05/09/14 Page 2 of 2