1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAJKO BARBIR, Case No. 2:24-cv-2284-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PATRICK COVELLO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. I found that the initial 19 petition appeared untimely, and offered petitioner an opportunity to amend and explain why his 20 claims should proceed. Petitioner filed an amended petition, ECF No. 7, that does nothing to 21 ameliorate the obvious untimeliness of his claims. Accordingly, I now recommend that the action 22 be dismissed. 23 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 25 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 26 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery,

(9th Cir. 2019); 27 Boyd v. Thompson,

(9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 As before, petitioner’s claims stem from a conviction that was finalized in the late 2 nineteen-eighties. ECF No. 7 at 9 (noting that the state court of appeal affirmed the conviction in 3 1989). Any challenge to this conviction is, as I found previously, well past the one-year statute of 4 limitations in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Notably, for 5 claimants like petitioner, whose conviction was finalized before the passage of AEDPA in 1996, 6 the deadline for filing a federal habeas petition expired one year after passage of the act, in 1997. 7 See Miles v. Punty,

(9th Cir. 1999) (“Accordingly, a prisoner with a state 8 conviction finalized before April 24, 1996, such as Miles, had until April 23, 1997 to file a federal 9 habeas petition.”). Plaintiff filed the initial petition in this action on August 22, 2024. ECF No. 10 1. As in his previous petition, petitioner has not offered any justification for the delay or 11 argument that tolling renders claims related to this conviction timely. Accordingly, I now 12 recommend this action be dismissed as untimely. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this 14 action. 15 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition, ECF No. 7, be DISMISSED 16 without leave to amend as untimely. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 19 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 20 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 22 within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 23 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 24 Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 25 1991). 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ May 16, 2025 Q_——_. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28