(HC) Saavedra v. Hill

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 18 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IDALBERTO SAAVEDRA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15
16
17

v.
HILL,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:22-cv-0506 JLT CDB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docs. 18, 20)

Idalberto Saavedra is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for habeas corpus

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) On June 22, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the

19

petition for habeas corpus. (Doc. 18.) Petitioner did not oppose motion. On September 28, 2022, the

20

assigned magistrate judge found that the habeas petition was untimely, and Petitioner did not establish

21

that statutory and/or equitable tolling was warranted. (Doc. 20 at 2-4.) Therefore, the magistrate

22

judge recommended the motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed. (Id. at 5.)

23

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations Petitioner by mail on September 28,

24

2022. It advised Petitioner that any objections had to be filed within thirty days after service and that

25

the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

26

Court’s order.” (Doc. 20 at 5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v.

27

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Petitioner did not file objections or any other response

28

to the Findings and Recommendations, and the deadline to do so has expired.
1

1

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case.

2

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations

3

are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Petitioner had until April 24, 1997, to file a timely

4

federal habeas petition. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2001) (state

5

prisoners had a one-year grace period in the absence of tolling to file their habeas petitions following

6

the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996). Petitioner filed his

7

petition nearly 24 years after any petition should have been filed and failed to show he was entitled to

8

statutory or equitable tolling. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 28, 2022 (Doc. 20) are
ADOPTED in full.

10
11

2.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.

12

3.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as untimely.

13

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 17, 2022

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2