Henry Cardenas Ponce v. Laura Eldridge

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 HENRY CARDENAS PONCE, Case No. EDCV 19-00751-DMG-MAA — 12 — Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 LAURA ELDRIDGE, Warden, JUDGE — 15 — Respondent. — 16 — — 17 — 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 , the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 19 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“R&R,” Doc. # 9). 21 The Court also has reviewed Petitioner’s objections to the Report and 22 Recommendation. (“Objections,” Doc. # 10.) As required by Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in a de novo review of the portions of 24 the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner specifically has objected. 25 Petitioner argues the merits of his claims and recounts the circumstances of 26 his custody. (Objections at 2-4.) The Magistrate Judge recommended, however, 27 dismissal of the Petition as untimely. (See R&R at 21.) In the Objections, 28 Petitioner concedes “he has failed to file his claims in a timely manner.” 1 || (Objections at 4.) The Objections do not present a basis for statutory or equitable 2 || tolling that would cure the Petition of its untimeliness. (See id. at 2-4 .) Thus, the 3 || Court need not reach the merits of Petitioner’s claims. See White v. Klitzkie, 281 4 || F.3d 920, 921-22 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 Petitioner quotes an unidentified authority detailing the provenance of a 6 || “constructive filing” rule with respect to notices of appeal. (Objections at 6.) The 7 || quoted authority appears to be an excerpt from People v. Rivera, 226 Cal. App. 4th 8 || 1145, 1150 (2014). This state-court decision regarding notices of appeal has no 9 || bearing on the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 10 || Courts, the procedural rules governing habeas proceedings in the federal courts. 11 || Nevertheless, the federal “mailbox rule” provides that a federal habeas petition is 12 || constructively filed on the date a prisoner hands the petition over to prison 13 || authorities for mailing. See Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 14 || 2010); accord Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 15 || States District Courts. As discussed in the R&R, the Court deemed the Petition to 16 || have been constructively filed on the date it was presented for mailing. (See R&R 17 || at 3.) Even so, the Petition is untimely. 18 The Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and 19 || recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and overrules the 20 || Objections. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of 22 || the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered 23 || denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. — 24 — 25 || DATED: April 16, 2020 26 Arty Jn . dh, 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 28 —