(HC) Barton v. Costelo

Filing 10

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 7/28/2022 ORDERING the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this action, GRANTING 7 Motion to Proceed IFP, DENYING as MOOT 5 Motion to Proceed IFP, and RECOMMENDING that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without leave to amend as time-barred. Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned for all further proceedings. Referred to Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days of service of the findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:22-cv-0904-KJM-JDP (HC). (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

WILLIAM BARTON,

10

Petitioner,

11

v.

12

JOSE COSTELO,

13

ORDER THAT:
(1) THE CLERK OF COURT ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO RULE ON THESE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

14
15

(2) PETITIONER’S SECOND APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE
GRANTEDAND HIS FIRST BE DENIED AS
MOOT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE PETITION BE DISMISSED AS
TIME-BARRED

16
17

ECF Nos. 5,7, & 9

18
19

Case No. 2:22-cv-00904-JDP (HC)

Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 2254. He alleges that a guilty plea that led to a 1976 murder conviction was not voluntary and

21

intelligent. ECF No. 1 at 1, 4.1 This claim is time-barred and should be dismissed. I will also

22

grant petitioner’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, and deny his first,

23

ECF No. 5, as moot.

24

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

25

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine

26

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the

27
28

1

Petitioner filed a similar petition in Barton v. Gastelo, 21-CV-1933-KJM-JDP, which I
also recommended be dismissed at ECF No. 12 in that case.
1

1

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019);

2

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

3

Petitioner’s claim, because it concerns a conviction that was finalized more than forty

4

years ago, is time-barred. It was finalized before the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty

5

Act of 1996 and, thus, petitioner had until April 24, 1997 to file a petition attacking his 1976

6

conviction. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We therefore hold

7

that AEDPA’s one-year grace period for challenging convictions finalized before AEDPA’s

8

enactment date is governed by Rule 6(a) and ended on April 24, 1997 in the absence of statutory

9

tolling.”). Petitioner has not identified any source of statutory tolling, much less a source

10

sufficient to render a more than forty-year old claim timely. Given the age of the claim, I

11

conclude that dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. Plaintiff may address why tolling

12

should apply, if at all, in his objections to these recommendations.

13

It is ORDERED that:

14

1.

The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action.

15

2.

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED

16
17
18

and his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as MOOT.
Further it is RECOMMENDED that the petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without
leave to amend as time-barred.

19

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge

20

presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of

21

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days

22

of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the

23

findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document

24

must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The

25

District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 636(b)(1)(C).

27
28
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
Dated:
4
5

July 28, 2022
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3