Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01066/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01066-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lydia Hense
Respondent
Troyce Eric Jackson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

TROYCE ERIC JACKSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

LYDIA HENSE, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01066-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 17)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 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 December 19, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

a Recommendation that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter

judgment in favor of Respondent. These Findings and Recommendation

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service

of that order. On January 18, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to

the Findings and Recommendation. 

Case 1:07-cv-01066-OWW -DLB Document 22 Filed 02/14/08 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

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 Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

analysis. In his objections, Petitioner primarily takes issue with

the fact that he claims he submitted his first petition in the

Fresno County Superior Court on December 17, 2003. despite the

proof of service date of July 8, 2004, and filing of July 13, 2004. 

This factual disparity was resolved by the Magistrate Judge in the

Findings and Recommendation. As stated in the Findings and

Recommendation, even if the Court assumed the first petition was

filed on December 17, 2003, for the reasons explained therein, the

instant petition is nonetheless untimely. Petitioner's objections

present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed December 19, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss the instant petition as

barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is GRANTED; and,

3. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01066-OWW -DLB Document 22 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2