Bernie Gomes v. People of the State of California, No. 2:2014cv01277 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Accordingly, having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been filed, the C ourt concurs with and accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Petition be denied as untimely. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 8 , 13 (bem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bernie Gomes v. People of the State of California Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 BERNIE GOMES, 10 Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, 13 Respondent. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 14-1277-JLS (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 17 Petition, the records and files of this case, and the Report and 18 Recommendation (“R&R”) of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The R&R 19 recommended that the Petition be dismissed because it was 20 untimely by more than four months. On September 22, 2014, 21 Petitioner filed objections to the R&R, in which he mostly 22 repeats arguments in the Petition and Reply or cites cases for 23 general principles of law without applying that law to the facts 24 of his case. The Court has considered and rejected those 25 objections.1 26 27 28 1 In his “Objection # 2,” Petitioner claims, without explanation, that his California Supreme Court habeas petition (continued...) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, having made a de novo determination of those 2 portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections 3 have been filed, the Court concurs with and accepts the 4 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Petition be denied as 5 untimely. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to 6 dismiss is GRANTED and Judgment be entered denying the Petition 7 and dismissing this action with prejudice. 8 9 DATED: December 3, 2014 JOSEPHINE L. STATON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 (...continued) 23 was in fact properly filed “because the court treated it as a motion for post conviction relief.” (Objections at 2.) But as 24 the R&R noted, his supreme court habeas petition was rejected as 25 untimely (R&R at 3-4, 10), and the court’s notice to that effect 26 27 28 nowhere mentions any motion for post-conviction relief; indeed, the letter is captioned, “Re: C074624 – In re Bernie Gomes on Habeas Corpus” (see Lodged Ex. 5). The Court’s review of the California Appellate Courts’ Case Information website confirms that Petitioner never properly filed anything in the state supreme court. 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.
