Taylor v. Pfeiffer

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING as Moot Petitioner's Motion to Stay, DENYING Without Prejudice Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and REMANDING Matter Back to Magistrate Judge 10 , 12 , 24 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/23/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD WALTER TAYLOR, JR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-01699-LJO-SAB-HC
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING AS
MOOT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY,
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,
AND REMANDING MATTER BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
C. PFEIFFER,
Respondent.

(ECF Nos. 10, 12, 24)

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and
20 Recommendation that recommended denying as moot Petitioner’s motion to stay and denying
21 Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 24). On July 26, 2018, Respondent filed timely
22 objections. (ECF No. 27).
23

The Court notes that in the objections, Respondent cites to authority that was not

24 referenced in the motion to dismiss or the reply and certain arguments raised in the objections
25 explicitly contradict the contentions set forth in Respondent’s motion to dismiss. For example, in
26 the motion to dismiss, Respondent argues that Petitioner unreasonably waited sixty-one days to
27 file his eighth post-conviction collateral challenge. (ECF No. 12 at 16–17). However, in the
28 objections, Respondent contends that the delay should be calculated as 152 days to include the

1

1 time of the improperly filed seventh post-conviction collateral challenge. (ECF No. 27 at 5).
2 Although the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that in certain circumstances a district court
3 abuses its discretion when it fails to consider new arguments or evidence proffered by a pro se
4 habeas petitioner . . . in objecting to a magistrate judge’s R & R,” there is a distinction between a
5 litigant who is represented by counsel and a pro se petitioner. Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225,
6 1231 (9th Cir. 2013). See Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 n.4 (9th Cir.
7 2005); Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, Respondent is represented by
8 counsel and Respondent does not provide an explanation for the conflicting contentions in the
9 motion to dismiss and the objections. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion and
10 decline to consider the new arguments raised in Respondent’s objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

11

12 a de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Respondent’s
13 objections except as discussed above, the Court concludes that the motion to dismiss will be
14 denied without prejudice to renewing the motion after the Court rules on the merits of the
15 petition. Ordinarily procedural bar issues are resolved first,1 but courts have recognized that
16 “[p]rocedural bar issues are not infrequently more complex than the merits issues . . . so it may
17 well make sense in some instances to proceed to the merits if the result will be the same.”
18 Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S.
19 518, 525 (1997)). In the instant case, the Court finds that the interests of justice will be better
20 served by adjudicating Petitioner’s claims on the merits rather than re-litigating a statute of
21 limitations defense based on belated and conflicting arguments.
22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on June 19, 2018 (ECF No. 24) is
ADOPTED IN PART;

24
25

2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (ECF No. 10) is DENIED as MOOT;

26

3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

27
1

“[T]he AEDPA ‘statute of limitations defense . . . is not jurisdictional.’” Holland, 560 U.S. 631 at 645 (internal

28 quotation marks omitted) (quoting Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 205 (2006)).
2

to renewing the motion2 after the Court rules on the merits of the petition; and

1

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

5

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

August 23, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The parties will be provided an opportunity to file supplemental briefing to include additional arguments.

3