(HC) Hundal v. Diaz ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMANJIT SINGH HUNDAL, No. 1:19-cv-00338-DAD-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RALPH DIAZ, (Doc. Nos. 12, 17, 19, 20) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 6, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot, 22 petitioner’s withdrawn request for a stay also be denied as moot, and petitioner’s motion to 23 amend be granted in part. (Doc. No. 20.) The findings and recommendations were served on all 24 parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 25 days from the date of service. No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has 26 now passed. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 28 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 1 || findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.! 2 Accordingly: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed on September 6, 2019 (Doc. No. 20), are 4 adopted in full; 5 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is denied as moot; 6 3. Petitioner’s request for a stay (Doc. No. 14), which he later withdrew (Doc. No. 7 17), is denied as moot; 8 4. Petitioner’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 19) is granted in part: 9 a. Plaintiff may proceed on his Claims One and Two; 10 b. Plaintiff is permitted to abandon his Claims Three and Four; 11 5, Claims Five, Six, and Seven are dismissed sua sponte as untimely under the 12 AEDPA’s statute of limitations; and 13 6. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 14 proceedings consistent with this order. 15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. □ Dated: _ December 19, 2019 See | ae 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 } ——__ ' The magistrate judge recommended that petitioner’s motion to amend be denied as to his 25 Claims Five, Six, and Seven because those claims are time barred under the Antiterrorism and 26 | Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of limitations. As noted, petitioner has not objected to the pending recommendation that the court sua sponte dismiss 27 | claims Five, Six, and Seven as untimely. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006) (“[W]e hold that district courts are permitted, but not obliged, to consider, sua sponte, the 28 | timeliness of a state prisoner's habeas petition.”).