Christopher L. Dixon v. Scott Kernan et al

Filing 18

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Otis D. Wright. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records and files herein, and the Magistrate J udge's Report and Recommendation. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner's Objections were directed. The Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is denied and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 16 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (gr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER L. DIXON,

12

Petitioner,
v.

13
14

SCOTT KERNAN,
Respondent.

15

Case ED CV 16-01126 -ODW (RAO)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17

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

18

records and files herein, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

19

Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report

20

to which Petitioner’s Objections were directed. The Court hereby accepts and

21

adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

22

The Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and

23

Recommendation and Petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to equitable tolling

24

because the impediments arising from his imprisonment (e.g., constant lockdowns)

25

and the restrictions on conducting legal research in a prison environment (e.g.,

26

limited law library and computer access) constitute extraordinary circumstances

27

that prevented him from timely filing his federal habeas petition.

28

///

1

Petitioner’s argument that the restrictions of imprisonment impeded his

2

ability to research, draft, and timely file a habeas petition warrants equitable tolling

3

fails. See, e.g., Martinez v. Knowles, 359 F. App’x 732, 733 (9th Cir. 2009)

4

(denying equitable tolling for period during which the petitioner was in prison

5

lockdown and prevented from accessing the law library and legal materials);

6

Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Ordinary prison limitations

7

on [petitioner’s] access to the law library and copier . . . were neither

8

‘extraordinary’ nor made it ‘impossible’ for him to file his petition in a timely

9

manner.”).

10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is denied and Judgment
shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

12
13
14
15

DATED: December 29, 2016
OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2