Jahan Frederick Handjani v. San Fernando Court

Filing 23

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 by Judge Manuel L. Real. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) Respondent's motion to dismiss the Petition 9 is GRANTED; (2) Petitioner's motion for leave to file a First Amended Petition 14 is DENIED; and (3) judgment be entered denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for untimeliness. (See Order for Further Details) (kl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

JAHAN FREDERICK HANDJANI,
Petitioner,
v.
SAN FERNANDO COURT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 16-3121-R (AGR)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

19

records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States

20

Magistrate Judge and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de

21

novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which

22

objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and

23

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

24

In his objections, Petitioner concedes that he was not in custody at the time

25

he filed his Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); (Obj. at 8). Petitioner’s argument that

26

he suffers collateral consequences from his convictions in the form of

27

discrimination by employers and the state bar admissions process is insufficient

28

to satisfy the “in custody” requirement. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-

1

92 (1989) (per curiam); Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir.

2

1999). This court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition.

3

Petitioner’s remaining objections are without merit. The Report contained

4

an alternative recommendation that the Petition be denied as untimely.

5

Petitioner’s conviction became final on March 18, 2013 and the one-year statute

6

of limitations expired one year later on March 18, 2014. (Report at 5.) Petitioner

7

now argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was (1) on

8

probation; (2) tracking down a residence he was to inherit from his parents; (3)

9

studying to take the California bar exam; and (4) the victim of a false medication

10

order by the Superior Court upon his release from jail (which he believes

11

constitutes a battery). (Obj. at 7.) Petitioner does not explain how these

12

circumstances prevented him from timely filing a petition for writ of habeas

13

corpus. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 634 (2010); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544

14

U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (extraordinary circumstances must cause an untimely filing).

15

Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Petition (Dkt. No. 14) is

16

denied because amendment would be futile. Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984,

17

1015 (9th Cir. (2014). The amendment would not alter the conclusions that the

18

court lacks jurisdiction and that the Petition is untimely.

19

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

20

Petition is GRANTED; (2) Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a First Amended

21

Petition is DENIED; and (3) judgment be entered denying the Petition for Writ

22

of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for untimeliness.

23
24

DATED: January 12, 2017

MANUEL L. REAL
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

2