-JPR Robert L. Morris v. James D. Hartley, No. 5:2011cv01063 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court concurs with and accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be granted and Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (rla)

Download PDF
-JPR Robert L. Morris v. James D. Hartley Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 FILED· SOUTHERN OtVISION- I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY "L • CLERK, HHSI CLASS MAIL POSI AGt PIlEPAIU, 10 ojI,ll ee\jU5E~ ",,*1110 \~~(' u.s. DISTRICT eQURl 'OR .'l,I.RTIe8J AT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOST RECENT ADDRESS OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION ON THIS DATE. DATED: NOV I 8 2011 l·I9·\l DEPUTY CLERK 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ROBERT L. MORRIS, ) Case No. EDCV 11-1063-PA (JPR) ) petitioner, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) vs. JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden, ) Respondent. ) ------------) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 17 Petition, all the records and files of this case, and the Report 18 and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. 19 filed "Objections with Points and Authorities" to the Report and 20 Recommendation, and the Court has made a de novo determination of 21 those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 22 Objections have been made. 23 The Petitioner The majority of Petitioner's objections do not address the 24 Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Petition be dismissed 25 on the ground that it is time barred. 26 address the merits of Petitioner's claim disputing the propriety 27 of the prison disciplinary hearing during which he was assessed a 28 90-day penalty; thus, they are largely irrelevant. Instead, the objections Petitioner's 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 only argument concerning equitable tolling is that he may have 2 failed to follow proper procedure "due to his ignorance of the 3 law" and lack of legal representation. (See Objections at 4.) 4 Ignorance of the law and lack of legal representation do not i ~ 5 provide a basis for tolling the statute of limitations under the 6 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPAU). 7 See. e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 8 2006) (holding that "a pro se petitioner's lack of legal 9 sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance 10 warranting equitable tolling" of the AEDPA limitations period); 11 Ekenberg v. Lewis, No. C 98-1450 FMS (PR), 1999 WL 13720, at 12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 1999) 13 legal assistance do not constitute such extraordinary 14 circumstances.") . 15 ~2 ("Ignorance of the law and lack of The Court therefore concurs with and accepts the Magistrate 16 Judge's recommendations that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be 17 granted and Judgment be entered denying the Petition and 18 dismissing this action with prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 DATED: November 17, 2011 PERCY ANDERS N UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.