Sandoval v. Shinn ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ned Alan Sandoval, No. CV-22-08037-PCT-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 David Shinn, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 (“Petition”). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issue a Report and 17 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny the Petition because it is 18 barred by the statute of limitations. 19 I. Review of R&R 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 22 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 23 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 25 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 26 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 27 otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 28 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 1 [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 2 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 3 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 5 and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 6 Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc 14). Respondent replied to the 7 objections. (Doc. 15). 8 II. Objections 9 Preliminarily, Petitioner makes a global objection. (Doc. 14 at 1). Specifically, 10 Petitioner states that he requests, “that this Court [] reject the Recommendations in [their] 11 entirety and grant relief on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Id.). However, 12 global or general objections are insufficient to cause the Court to engage in a de novo 13 review of an R&R. See Kenniston v. McDonald, No. 15-CV-2724-AJB-BGS, 2019 WL 14 2579965, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2019); Warling v. Ryan, 2013 WL 5276367, at *2 (D. 15 Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013); Martin v. Ryan, CV-13-00381-PHX-ROS, 2014 WL 5432133, *2 16 (D. Ariz. October 24, 2014). Accordingly, the Court overrules without further analysis this 17 global objection. 18 The R&R recounts the law governing the statute of limitations under the Anti- 19 Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). (Doc. 13 at 3-5). Neither party 20 has objected to this discussion of the governing law, and the Court hereby accepts and 21 adopts it. 22 The R&R concludes that Petitioner did not file this case within the one-year AEDPA 23 statute of limitations. (Doc. 13 at 7). Specifically, the R&R determines that the statute of 24 limitations expired on July 16, 2005, therefore the Petition in this case, filed on March 7, 25 2022, was untimely. (Doc. 13 at 4). Neither party objected to this determination and the 26 Court hereby accepts and adopts it. 27 The R&R recognizes that there is a gateway around the statute of limitations for 28 someone who is actually innocent (Doc. 13 at n.1) and that the statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling (Doc. 13 at 5-6). The R&R concludes that neither of these 2|| exceptions to the statute of limitations applies to Petitioner. (Doc. 13 at 7). While || Petitioner’s objections are not exactly clear, Petitioner appears to object to this conclusion. 4 Because Petitioner states in his objections that he is not trying to overturn his 5 || conviction, he is only seeking a sentence reduction (Doc. 14 at 3), the Court finds Petitioner || is not arguing for an actual innocence exception to the statute of limitations. Petitioner 7\|| does not argue, as it relates to equitable tolling, that any extraordinary circumstances stood 8 || in his way that prevented him from timely filing. See generally (Doc. 14). Instead, Petitioner argues the merits of his underlying claims. See generally (Doc. 14). Because 10 || this case is barred by the statute of limitations and not subject to an exception to the statute of limitations, the Court will not consider the merits of Petitioner’s claims. As a result, the portion of the objections arguing the merits of Petitioner’s claims is overruled. Il. Conclusion 14 All of Petitioner’s objections having been overruled, the Court adopts the R&R’s 15 || conclusion that the Petition in this case is barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted; the 17 || Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of 18 || limitations, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 20 || Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural || bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack 23 || v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 24 Dated this 24th day of August, 2022. 25 26 A 27 James A. Teilborg 28 Senior United States District Judge -3-