James Trotter v. Kamala D. Harris

Filing 16

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge James V. Selna for Report and Recommendation 15 (mt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES TROTTER,
Petitioner,

13

v.

14
15

MARTIN BITER,
Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. LA CV 14-7854 JVS (JCG)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate

19

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record. No objections to the

20

Report and Recommendation have been filed.

21

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

22

1.

The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;

23

2.

Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice; and

24

3.

The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

25

Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the

26

Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable

27

whether”: (1) “the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”;

28

and (2) “the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” See Slack v. McDaniel,
1

1

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of

2

appealability.

3

Petitioner is advised that the Court’s dismissal of this action is without

4

prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to pursue federal habeas relief, he may file a new

5

federal habeas petition after he has “fairly present[ed]” his unexhausted claim(s) in a

6

state habeas petition to the California Supreme Court. See Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d

7

1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 2008). A claim is deemed to have been “fairly presented” when

8

the petitioner has described both the operative facts and the federal legal theory on

9

which the claim is based. Id. at 1009.

10

Petitioner is further advised that there is a one-year statute of limitations on

11

federal habeas claims by a petitioner in state custody, which ordinarily begins to run at

12

the end of the period during which that petitioner may seek direct review. 28 U.S.C.

13

§ 2244(d). The limitations period is tolled while a properly filed application for state

14

post-conviction relief, or other collateral review (such as a state habeas petition), is

15

pending. Id. However, the limitations period is not tolled while a petition is pending

16

in federal court. Duncan v.Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

17
18
19
20
21
22

DATED: October 19, 2015

_______________
HON. JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2