Seau v. Pfeiffer
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a state prisoner's objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his § 2254 habeas petition as time-barred. The court overruled the objection, adopted the report, and granted the motion to dismiss.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Overrule Petitioner's objection to the Report and Recommendation“The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the de novo standard required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for reviewing objections to a magistrate's report. The substantive rejection of the 'actual innocence' claim is supported by the record recited in the order, which notes that the petitioner relied on trial record evidence rather than new, reliable evidence. |
Adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety“the Court HEREBY ADOPTS the Report [Doc. No. 14.] in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court Adopting the report is the procedural consequence of overruling the only objection filed. The court has the authority to accept the magistrate's findings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). |
Grant the Motion to Dismiss“The Court HEREBY GRANTS the motion to dismiss.” | de novo | agree with court The dismissal is based on the AEDPA statute of limitations. The court found that the petitioner failed to meet the high burden of the 'actual innocence' gateway exception because he did not present new, reliable evidence, but rather pointed to the existing trial record. This is a correct application of the law. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard of review (de novo) for the magistrate's report. It accurately applies the 'actual innocence' exception by noting that the petitioner failed to provide 'new, reliable evidence' and instead relied on the trial record, which is insufficient under Schlup and Lee. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient to support the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD I. SEAU, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0572-CAB-DEB 12 PETITIONER, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 14] AND GRANTING MOTION TO 14 CHRISTIAN PFIEFFER, Warden, et al., DISMISS [Doc. No. 11.] 15 RESPONDENTS. 16 17 On March 22, 2024, Petitioner (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, filed a Petition for 18 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] On September 30, 19 2024, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 11.] On June 30, 2025, Magistrate 20 Judge Daniel E. Butcher issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending 21 that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 14.] The Report also ordered that 22 any objections were to be filed by July 14, 2025. [Report at 6.] 23 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 24 and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews de novo those portions of 26 the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 27 The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 28 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. 1 Petitioner filed timely objections to the Report, which the Court resolves de novo. 2 ||[Doc. No. 15.] Against the Report’s conclusion that no tolling provision saves the petition 3 || from AEDPA’s statute of limitations, Petitioner again argues that the “factual innocence” 4 ||exception applies to his claim. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314-15 (1995). The 5 Court agrees with the Report’s well-reasoned analysis. Petitioner has not identified any 6 || new, reliable evidence to warrant the application of the “actual innocence” exception. Lee 7 || v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 932, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2011) (actual innocence exception requires 8 ||the production of “new reliable evidence . . . that was not presented at trial” (quoting 9 || Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324)). His objection specifically points to the record established at 10 |/trial. As properly concluded in the Report, Petitioner is not entitled to review of his time- 11 || barred claims. 12 The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY 13 ||} ADOPTS the Report [Doc. No. 14.] in its entirety. The Court HEREBY GRANTS the 14 || motion to dismiss. 15 It is SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: July 28, 2025 € Ee 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28