The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
AT SEATTLE
9
10 DIONDRAE BROWN, CASE NO. C24-0242JLR
11 Petitioner, ORDER
v.
12
JACK WARNER,
13
Respondent.
14
15 I. INTRODUCTION
16 Before the court is Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson’s report and
17 recommendation, in which she recommends that the court dismiss pro se Petitioner
18 Diondrae Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus as barred by the
19 relevant state of limitations. (R&R (Dkt. # 14); see Petition (Dkt. # 4).) Mr. Brown filed
20 timely objections on September 10, 2024. (Obj. (Dkt. # 17); see 9/3/24 Min. Order
21 (extending Mr. Brown’s deadline to file objections).) Respondent Jack Warner, warden
22 of the Monroe Correctional Complex, filed an answer to Mr. Brown’s petition, together
1 with relevant portions of the state court record, but did not respond to Mr. Brown’s
2 objections. (Answer (Dkt. # 11); Record (Dkt. # 12).) The court has considered the
3 report and recommendation, Mr. Brown’s objections, the relevant portions of the record,
4 and the governing law. Being fully advised, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
5 Peterson’s report and recommendation and DISMISSES Mr. Brown’s habeas petition
6 with prejudice.
7 II. BACKGROUND
8 Mr. Brown is a Washington state prisoner who is currently in the custody of the
9 Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”). (Petition at 1.) On March 13, 2019, a
10 jury found Mr. Brown guilty on multiple counts. (See Record, Ex. 1 at 1, 8.) On May 9,
11 2019, the King County Superior Court sentenced Mr. Brown to a total term of 381
12 months of confinement, to be followed by 18 months of community custody. (See id.,
13 Ex. 1 at 5-6.) Because Mr. Brown does not object to the procedural history set forth in
14 the report and recommendation, the court adopts that portion of the report and
15 recommendation and does not repeat it here. (See R&R at 2-4; see generally Obj.)
16 Magistrate Judge Peterson recommends that the court dismiss Mr. Brown’s habeas
17 petition as barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”)
18 one-year limitation period for state prisoners to file applications for federal habeas relief.
19 (R&R at 4-7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).) After applying AEDPA’s statutory tolling
20 provisions, Magistrate Judge Peterson determined that the statute of limitations for Mr.
21 Brown’s habeas petition expired on March 28, 2022. (Id. at 4-5.) Mr. Brown did not,
22 however, file his habeas petition until February 22, 2024, over 22 months after the statute
1 of limitations expired. (Id. at 5 (citing Prop. Petition (Dkt. # 1)).) Magistrate Judge
2 Peterson also determined that Mr. Brown was not entitled to equitable tolling of the
3 statute of limitations (id. at 6 (citing Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 652 (2010)) or to
4 an actual innocence exception to the statute of limitations (id. at 6-7 (first citing
5 McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013); and then citing Schlup v. Delo, 513
6 U.S. 298, 324, 329 (1995))).
7 III. ANALYSIS
8 A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and
9 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court
10 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
11 by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the
12 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo
13 if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
14 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis added). Because Mr. Brown is proceeding pro
15 se, the court must interpret his petition and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los
16 Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).
17 In his objections, Mr. Brown does not address Magistrate Judge Peterson’s
18 conclusion that his habeas petition is barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations. (See
19 generally Obj.) To the contrary, Mr. Brown focuses on the merits of his petition, arguing
20 that he was unconstitutionally convicted by an all-white jury and that his sentence was
21 overly harsh in light of his prior record. (See generally id.; see also Petition at 5-8;
22 Memorandum (Dkt. # 4-1).) Therefore, the court OVERRULES Mr. Brown’s objections.
1 Moreover, the court has carefully reviewed the report and recommendation and, on de
2 novo review, agrees with Magistrate Judge Peterson’s recommendations. Therefore, the
3 court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Peterson’s report and recommendation in full.
4 IV. CONCLUSION
5 For the foregoing reasons, the court OVERRULES Mr. Brown’s objections (Dkt.
6 # 17) and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Peterson’s report and recommendation (Dkt. # 14).
7 The court ORDERS as follows:
8 1. Mr. Brown’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 4) and this action
9 are DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d);
10 2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the
11 report and recommendation (see R&R at 7-8); and
12 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this order to Mr. Brown, to
13 counsel for Respondent, and to Magistrate Judge Peterson.
14 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2024.
15
A
16
17 JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22