Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00084/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00084-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. J. Malfi
Respondent
Byron Daniel Primas
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON DANIEL PRIMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

A. J. MALFI, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00084 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[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 July 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition be GRANTED for violating the statute of

limitations and for failure to exhaust state remedies. The Magistrate Judge recommended the petition

be DISMISSED with prejudice and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The

Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

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

On August 22, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In his

Case 1:06-cv-00084-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 10/04/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

objections, Petitioner claims lockdowns prevented him from timely filing his petition. However, he

makes no showing as to when these lockdowns occurred, their duration, and in what way he was

prevented from timely complying with the limitations period. It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate

the manner in which extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing his petition.

Absent any showing, he is not entitled to equitable tolling.

Petitioner also contends his claims did not materialize until six months after the disciplinary

action took place when prison authorities refused to restore 90 days of credit. This argument is of no

consequence for the limitations period had not yet commenced six months after the disciplinary

action. The disciplinary conviction took place on March 20, 2004. Seven months later, the director’s

level appeal was denied on November 2, 2004. It was then that the limitations period began. Because

the limitations period had not yet commenced at the time Petitioner contends his claim materialized,

the limitations period cannot be tolled.

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Therefore, there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 27, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00084-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2