Opinion
1:08-cv-01012-AWI-DLB (HC)
01-06-2012
ALEJANDRO PRADO, Petitioner, v. KEN CLARK, Respondent.
ORDER REGARDING UNTIMELY
OBJECTIONS FILED AFTER ORDER
DISMISSING INSTANT PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Docs. 26, 27]
On August 19, 2009, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to grant Respondent's motion to dismiss the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely under § 2244(d). Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation on September 17, 2009. The recommendation was adopted in full on September 24, 2009, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Almost two years later, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation on August 15, 2011. Petitioner then filed a status report on November 8, 2011.
Petitioner is advised that the Court read and considered Petitioner's objections in the September 24, 2009, order adopting the Findings and Recommendation and any further challenge to the Court's ruling is now untimely. The case was dismissed with prejudice over two years ago and no further objections will be considered by the Court. Any further filings in this matter will be stricken from the record without consideration by the Court.
In that order the Court specifically stated that Petitioner filed objections on August 22, 2009 and "Petitioner's objections revolve around the argument that his October 19, 2005, federal petition should not have been found untimely. (See Objections at 1-3, 6.). The disposition of that petition however, was decided on April 13, 2006, and is not in question. The matter in question now is Petitioner's July 16, 2008 petition. Petitioner make[s] no argument regarding the instant petition." (ECF No. 23, at 1.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE