Griffin v. Foulk

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/26/15. Respondent's 13 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 60 days. The court declines to issue COA. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY C. GRIFFIN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0837 TLN AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

F. FOULK,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On September 12, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Respondent has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 19.) Petitioner has filed a reply to the

24

objections. (ECF No. 20.)

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

27

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

28
1

1

analysis. 1

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 12, 2014 (ECF No. 16) are

4

adopted in full;

5

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is denied;

6

3. Respondent is ordered to file an answer to the petition within sixty days from the date

7

of this order; and

8
9

4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: February 26, 2015

14
15
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Petitioner’s reply raises new arguments that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until
September 11, 2012 and, in the alternative, that the statute of limitations should be subject to
equitable tolling. (ECF No. 20 at 3–8.) While the first theory may have merit, the Court need not
reach either argument because the grounds for denying the motion to dismiss, as set forth in the
findings and recommendations (ECF No. 16), are adequate and sufficient.
2