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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

CAROL PORTER,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5793RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J.

Kelley Arnold United States Magistrate Judge, filed June 1, 2006 (Dkt. 85-1), the Report and

Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold United States Magistrate Judge, filed July 10, 2006

(Dkt. 94-1), Petitioner’s Motion to Seeking Indictments (Dkt. 95), Petitioner’s Motion of Intent to

File Writ Amicus Curiae (Dkt. 97), and Petitioner’s Motion to Subpoena (Dkt. 98). The Court has

reviewed the Reports and Recommendations of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold United States Magistrate

Judge, Petitioner’s Objections, Petitioner’s various other motions, and the remaining record. 

Petitioner challenges his Clallam County Superior Court conviction of attempted first degree

murder. Dkt. 4. On June 1, 2006, Judge Arnold recommended dismissal of the petition with

prejudice as time barred pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”)

Section 2244(d)(1). Dkt. 85-1. Petitioner files objections, arguing that the AEDPA applies only to

Case 3:05-cv-05793-RJB Document 99 Filed 07/31/06 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

ORDER - 2

people on death row and to terrorists, and therefore not to him. Dkt. 93. Petitioner is incorrect. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) provides, “[a] 1-year statute of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ

of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” Review of the

relevant record and the Report and Recommendation reveals that this petition is time barred and that

no exceptions apply. The Report and Recommendation, filed June 1, 2006, should be adopted and

this petition should be dismissed. 

Petitioner made two motions for protective orders which were filed with the Clerk of the

Court the day before the June 1, 2006 Report and Recommendation was entered, but not entered

into the record until after the Report and Recommendation was filed. Dkts. 90 and 91. These

motions are largely unreadable. Id. Judge Arnold issued a second Report and Recommendation

addressing these motions. Dkt. 94-1. The Report and Recommendation properly notes that these

motions deal with issues unrelated to the petition currently before the Court. Id., at 3. The Report

and Recommendation should be adopted and these motions denied. 

On July 24, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Seeking Indictments (Dkt. 95), a Motion of

Intent to File Writ Amicus Curiae (Dkt. 97), and a Motion to Subpoena (Dkt. 98). These motions

should be stricken as moot in light of above dismissal of the petition. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED: 

(1) The Court ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations (Dkts. 85-1 and 94-1);

(2) Petitioner’s Motions for Protective Orders (Dkts. 90 and 91) are DENIED;

(3) The petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth in the

Report and Recommendation.

(4) Petitioner’s Motion to Seeking Indictments (Dkt. 95), and a Motion of Intent to File

Writ Amicus Curiae (Dkt. 97), and a Motion to Subpoena (Dkt. 98) are STRICKEN

AS MOOT.

(5) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, counsel for

Respondent, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05793-RJB Document 99 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2