Tyrone Anthony Sholes v. Chance Andes, Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01098
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYRONE ANTHONY SHOLES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01098 JLT CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING THE 14 CHANCE ANDES, Warden, CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE

15 Respondent. (Doc. 10)

16 17 Tyrone Anthony Sholes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge performed a 19 preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and 20 found the petition appeared untimely, because Petitioner indicated “his conviction was affirmed 21 on direct appeal on June 20, 2016, and the California Supreme Court declined review on July 25, 22 2017.” (Doc. 9 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition 23 should not be dismissed as untimely, because the information provided indicated the statute of 24 limitations expired in 2018 and the collateral state proceedings identified in the petition did not 25 revive the statute of limitations. (Id. at 3.) The Court granted Petitioner 21 days to respond. (Id.) 26 After Petitioner did not respond to the Court’s order to show cause, the magistrate judge 27 issued Findings and Recommendations, reiterating the prior findings that the petition was untimely. (Doc. 10 at 4-5.) The magistrate judge also found Petitioner failed to prosecute the 1 action, failed to comply with the Court’s order, and failed to comply with the Local Rules. (Id. 2 at 1, 3.) The magistrate judge found terminating sanctions are appropriate after considering the 3 factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 (Id. at 2-4.) The magistrate judge recommended dismissal “for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute 5 this action and to comply with the Court’s orders … and as untimely.” (Id. at 5.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations upon Petitioner and notified him 7 that any objections were to be filed within 14 days. The Court advised him that the “failure to 8 file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 9 (Id. at 5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not 10 file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that the petition is untimely 13 is supported by the record and proper analysis. Likewise, the Court agrees Petitioner failed to 14 prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order and adopts the findings that 15 terminating sanctions are appropriate on these grounds. However, the magistrate judge did not 16 specify the Local Rule that Petitioner failed to comply with (Doc. 10 at 3), and the Court declines 17 to speculate as such. To the extent the magistrate judge refers to Local Rule 110, the rule 18 addresses the authority of the Court to impose sanctions. (See Local Rule 110.) Therefore, the 19 Court declines to adopt the finding that Petitioner also failed to comply with the Local Rules. 20 The Court also considers whether to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner 21 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 22 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 23 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on procedural 24 grounds, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason would find it 25 debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 26 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 27 ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the Court finds that 1 | or wrong, or that Petitioner stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the 2 | Court ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 26, 2025 (Doc. 10) are 4 ADOPTED in part. 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ September 17, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28