Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ransom v. Kramer

August 2, 2010

JOSEPH E. RANSOM, PETITIONER,
v.
MATTHEW C. KRAMER, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William Q. Hayes United States District Judge

ORDER

HAYES, Judge

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 10) issued by United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) be granted and that judgment be entered dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) for failure to file within the applicable statute of limitations.

I. Background

Petitioner Joseph E. Ransom is currently serving a prison term of eighteen years following his conviction in San Diego County Superior Court of first degree residential burglary and a finding that Petitioner had been previously convicted of two serious felony offenses.

On May 9, 2005, Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal of California. On October 19, 2006, the state appellate court affirmed Petitioner's conviction. On November 28, 2006, Petitioner filed an appeal with the California Supreme Court. On February 7, 2007, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's appeal. On May 8, 2007, Petitioner's conviction became final.

On August 6, 2009, Petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1). In the Petition, Petitioner contends that his "sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated." (Id. at 6). Petitioner also contends that "I didn't do this crime." (Id. at 7).

On November 19, 2009, Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss, contending that the Petition was filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Doc. # 9). Petitioner did not file an opposition or other response to the Motion to Dismiss.

On June 9, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 10). The Report and Recommendation concludes:

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTING Respondent's Motion to Dismiss as set forth herein; and (3) directing that judgment be entered dismissing the Petition for failure to file within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than July 12, 2010, any party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Report and Recommendation."

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than August 2, 2010. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order. (Doc. # 10 at 6-7).

The docket reflects that neither party filed objections to the Report ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.