Seau v. Pfeiffer

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