Branden Willie Iseli v. Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01628
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, Case No. 2:25-cv-1628-WBS-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN,

15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Branden Willie Iseli, a state prisoner, brought this section 2254 action attacking 18 a state conviction for murder, attempted murder, and elder abuse. ECF No. 10 at 1. Respondent 19 has moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that it is successive, untimely, and contains 20 unexhausted claims. ECF No. 19. Petitioner has filed an opposition, ECF No. 20, and respondent 21 has filed a reply, ECF No. 21. For the reasons stated hereafter, I agree with respondent’s 22 argument and recommend that the petition be dismissed. 23 No habeas rule specifically applies to motions to dismiss. See Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F. 24 Supp. 1189, 1194 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (“Motion practice in habeas corpus is not specifically 25 provided for in the rules but must be inferred from their structure and the Advisory Committee 26 Notes.”). The Ninth Circuit construes a motion to dismiss a habeas petition as a request for the 27 court to dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, however. See O’Bremski v. 28 1 Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1991). Under Rule 4, I evaluate whether it “plainly appears” 2 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and, if so, recommend dismissal. 3 The petition is successive. Respondents point out that petitioner has filed two previous 4 federal habeas petitions, Iseli v. Lynch, 2:22-cv-01483-TLN-EFB and Iseli v. Lynch, 2:24-cv- 5 00837-WBS-SCR. The first of these was denied on the merits; the latter as successive. 6 Plaintiff’s opposition, ECF No. 20, offers no counterargument. Such successive petitions are 7 barred until and unless the petitioner receives permission from the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2244(b)(3)(A). He has not argued or shown that he has sought and received that permission. 9 This alone is reason enough to recommend that the petition be dismissed. 10 The petition is also untimely. Respondent argues that the one-year statute of limitations 11 under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act began to run on September 13, 2022— 12 ninety days after the California Supreme Court denied review and the state direct appeals process 13 concluded.1 ECF No. 19 at 3. Petitioner does not offer any counterargument or alternate 14 timeline. Thus, petitioner had until September 13, 2023, to file his federal petition.2 He did not 15 file the immediate petition until June 12, 2025, however. ECF No. 1. 16 Based on the foregoing, I find that respondents’ motion to dismiss should be granted. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for extension of time to make 18 corrections, ECF No. 22, and motion for an extension of time and to transfer, ECF No. 15, are 19 DENIED without prejudice to renewal if these recommendations are not adopted. 20 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19, be 21 GRANTED, and the petition be DISMISSED as successive and untimely. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 24 1 Such state court records are appropriate for judicial notice. Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. 25 of America, 336 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1964). 2 The previously filed federal habeas petitions do not toll the statute of limitations for the 26 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 27 2001) (“The Supreme Court recently held that an application for federal habeas corpus relief does not toll the limitations period pursuant to § 2244(d)(2).”) (citing Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 28 (2001)). 1 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 2 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 3 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 4 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 6 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 7 | 1991). 8 | IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 | Dated: _ December 4, 2025 _ pene Wns JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28