Opinion
Case No. 2:18-cv-05571-RSWL-JC
04-07-2020
ASHLEY LUTHER MURRAY PRICE, Petitioner, v. W.L. MUNIZ, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") and all of the records herein, including the February 24, 2020 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report and Recommendation" or "R&R"), and petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation filed on March 24, 2020.
The Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. The Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and overrules petitioner's Objections. Although the Court has considered and overruled all of petitioner's Objections, the Court further addresses certain of petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation below.
In his Objections, petitioner again contends that the Court should hear his untimely claims because he is actually innocent of the carjacking conviction based on his alleged ownership/financial responsibility for the carjacked vehicle and evidence of Leilanie's prior record for grand theft. Petitioner takes issue with the Court deciding his claim of actual innocence without evidence of Leilanie's January 4, 2005 grand theft charge, and without holding an evidentiary hearing to explore petitioner's actual innocence claim. (Objections at 1-2, 4-5 (citing R&R at 22 & n.4)).
Evidence of Leilanie's prior grand theft charge, even if accepted as true, does not suggest that petitioner is factually innocent of the carjacking. See R&R at 21-22. Additionally, as petitioner has been advised throughout his state and federal proceedings, under California law ownership is not a defense to carjacking. See R&R at 21. Petitioner has failed to suggest any evidence of material import re actual innocence to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition and this action are dismissed with prejudice because petitioner's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that Judgment be entered accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on petitioner and counsel for respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 7, 2020
s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE