UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 15, 2012
CHRISTIAN OSEGUEDA, PETITIONER,
RANDY GROUNDS, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James V. Selna United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge found the petition to be time-barred. Petitioner's conviction on direct review was final on May 30, 2006. (Report at 3.) Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling. (Id.) Petitioner argues he is entitled to equitable tolling because of advice given to him by a law school student at the California Western School of Law California Innocence Project. (Objections at 2.)
According to Petitioner, the student "strongly suggested that Petitioner should not file his [habeas] petition in any state court, because if the case was denied, [the Innocence Project] wouldn't be able to help any more." (Id. at 2-3 (citing Ex. E).) However, Petitioner omits a material part of the student's "advice": "[W]e need to caution you about filing any pro per writ petitions in state court. If you file such a petition and lose, it may prevent us from later raising a claim on your behalf. As a result I ask that you please not file any petitions in state court without first consulting me." (Objections, Ex. E (emphasis added).) The letter from the student is dated September 17, 2010, and there is no indication that Petitioner ever consulted with the student or anyone else at the Innocence Project about filing state habeas petitions. (Id.) Petitioner did not file his first state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal until January 30, 2012, over a year after the letter from the law school student. See California Online Appellate Court Case Information online in Case No. B238749.
Moreover, Petitioner does not explain why he waited over six years after his conviction became final to file the instant federal petition. The petition's four grounds were all raised on direct review. Compare Petition at 5-6 with People v. Osegueda, 2005 WL 3485502 (2005).
Petitioner's remaining objections have no merit.
IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.