The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PAUL ERVEN JACKSON,
Petioner, Case No.: 6:24-cv-01661-CL
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
JASON HANSON, Superintedent,
Columbia River Correctional Institution
Respondent.
______________________________
MCSHANE, District Judge
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (Mag. J. Findings
& Recommendation, ECF No. 26), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Petitioner Paul Ereven Jackson submitted objections to the
Findings and Recommendation. Obj., ECF No. 30.1 I have reviewed the record of this case de
novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,
656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error.
Judge Clarke found that Petitioner’s current challenge to his guideline sentence is separate
from a previous challenge to a sentence Petitioner calculated under the pre-guideline matrix
1 Preliminarily, Petitioner objects to Magistrate Judge Clarke twice denying his Motions for Appointment of
Counsel. Obj. 1; ECF Nos. 8, 21. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus
proceedings. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th
Cir. 1986). Because the “interests of justice” did not require the appointment of counsel, and counsel was not
necessary for effective discovery or an evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge Clarke did not err when denying
Petitioner’s motions. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
system. Findings & Recommendation 9. A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A federal habeas petition is second or successive if it
“challenges the same state court judgement as the initial petition.” Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661,
667 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 333 (2010)). Because Mr. Jackson
challenges two separate judgements, the instant petition is not second or successive. Findings &
Recommendation 9. Mr. Jackson’s objection to Magistrate Judge Clarke’s finding on this issue is
unsuccessful.
Judge Clarke correctly found that Mr. Jackson’s petition is untimely. There is a one-year
period of limitation on an application for a writ of habeas corpus by “a person in custody pursuant
to the judgement of State court”. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Here, that period began on “the date on
which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through
the exercise of due diligence.” Id. § 2244(d)(1)(D).
Here, Mr. Jackson knew of his calculated sentence and release as early as August 2019.
Findings & Recommendation 12. Because Mr. Jackson challenged his guidelines sentence more
than one year after August 2019, and he fails to convincingly argue why tolling is appropriate, he
is not entitled to habeas relief.2 Hasan v. Galaza, F.3d 1150, 1154 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001).
After considering Petitioner’s objections and reviewing the file of this case de novo, Judge
Clarke's Findings & Recommendation, ECF No. 26, are ADOPTED in full. Accordingly,
2 Mr. Jackson requests that this Court consider equitable tolling. Obj. 6. To establish a basis to grant equitable
tolling, Mr. Jackson must prove two elements: “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649
(2010). Because nothing in Mr. Jackson’s objection demonstrates that he faced any extraordinary obstacle to filing
his writ, his request for equitable tolling is denied.
Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 2, is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED as well.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of September 2026.
_______/s/ Michael McShane_____
Michael McShane
United States District Judge