1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL GRANDBERRY, Case No. CV 19-8262-DMG (PVC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 J. GASTELO, Warden, STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, Respondent’s 18 Motion to Dismiss, the relevant records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 19 and Recommendation, and Petitioner’s Objections. Having engaged in a de novo review 20 of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the 21 Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 22 23 In his Objections, Petitioner contends that it was improper for the Court to have 24 transferred this case to a different Magistrate Judge. (Obj. at 2). Petitioner does not 25 allege, however, any facts establishing judicial misconduct or bias that could serve as a 26 ground for recusal, apart from his displeasure with the Magistrate Judge’s 27 recommendation. “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis” for 28 recusal, and here, Petitioner’s disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 1 is an insufficient ground to compel the extraordinary remedy of judicial recusal. Liteky v. 2 United States,

(1994). 3 4 Petitioner also asserts that access to the prison law library is limited due to the 5 COVID-19 pandemic and is anticipated to remain so until December 2020. (Obj. at 2). 6 Yet, Petitioner does not specify what research, if any, he believes he needed to perform. 7 Immediately following his generalized complaint about library access, Petitioner 8 incorporates by reference the prior contentions in his opposition to Respondent’s motion 9 to dismiss in which he argued that any procedural infirmities in the Petition “have no legal 10 bearing on the evidence supplied by Petitioner that sufficiently demonstrates a showing of 11 actual innocence.” (Id. at 3). Petitioner’s opposition addressed relevant case law 12 concerning actual innocence claims, including Schlup v. Delo,

(1994). (See 13 Opp. to MTD, Dkt. No. 21, at 3). Petitioner’s unsupported allegation of limited law 14 library access, which seemingly will apply to every prisoner in the country during the 15 pandemic, without a showing of need, is an inadequate ground to reject the Magistrate 16 Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See Her v. United States,

, at *2 17 (D. N.M. Apr. 22, 2020) (petitioner “failed to establish a ‘manifest injustice’ stemming 18 from any COVID-19 delays” in law library access where he did not specify the research 19 he needed to perform). 20 21 Petitioner also appears to contend that the Magistrate Judge failed to properly 22 construe People v. Chiu,

(2014), which Petitioner relied on in support of 23 his first ground for habeas relief. (Obj. at 3). This objection is irrelevant because the 24 Report and Recommendation’s discussion of Chiu merely concluded that because Chiu 25 was a state court decision, it did not trigger a later starting date for the AEDPA statute of 26 limitations under

(d)(1)(C), and even if it could be construed as a 27 “factual predicate” triggering an alternate start date of the statute of limitations under 28 § 2244(d)(1)(D), it would not render the Petition timely. (R&R at 4-5 &. n.2). 1 2 Finally, Petitioner’s cursory assertion that the Magistrate Judge’s finding that 3 || Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling was “incorrect,” without any attempt to 4 | show why equitable tolling should apply, is not persuasive. (Obj. at 3); see also Pace v. 5 || DiGuglielmo,

(2005) (petitioner bears the burden of showing an 6 || entitlement to equitable tolling). Accordingly, all of Petitioner’s Objections are overruled. 7 8 IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Petition is 9 || denied and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 10 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the 12 || Judgment herein on Petitioner at his current address of record and on counsel for 13 || Respondent. 14 15 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 16 17 | DATED: August 19, 2020 18

DOLLY M £feE 20 UNITED S§ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28