Frederick Jerome Morman v. Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 23 . Because the Petition is time barred for the reasons stated in the R. & R., IT IS ORDERED that it is denied, Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for details) 12 (bem)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FREDERICK JEROME MORMAN,
DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND
) Case No. CV 16-1437-BRO (JPR)
) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the
16 Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S.
17 Magistrate Judge. On February 16, 2017, Petitioner filed
18 objections to the R. & R., in which he mostly argues that the
19 Magistrate Judge and this Court are biased against him.1
20 Although Petitioner does not directly address the Magistrate
21 Judge’s conclusion that the Petition is time barred, he does
22 attach to the objections numerous records concerning his mental
23 health. But as noted in the R. & R., during the relevant period
24 Petitioner had the assistance of an inmate helper (R. & R. at 2025 21), who continues to litigate the Petition for him (including by
On February 28, 2017, the Court construed the objections
to include a motion to disqualify both judges, and it was
referred to the Honorable S. James Otero, U.S. District Judge,
for decision. That same day, he denied the objections “to the
extent premised on allegations . . . of bias.” Thus, the Court
does not address that aspect of the objections.
1 preparing and filing the objections (see Objs. at 1)).
2 event, the newly submitted medical records show that Petitioner
3 has at all relevant times had only mild mental-health issues: his
4 GAF score has almost always been in the 60s2 (see, e.g,, Objs. at
5 38 (GAF score of 65 in Sept. 2014), 65 (same in Dec. 2014), 92
6 (62 in Sept. 2015), 84 (62 in Apr. 2016)); his thought processes
7 have remained “logical” and “linear” and “relevant to the topic
8 of discussion” (see, e.g., id. at 30, 38, 63, 66, 131, 155); and
9 he has always been able to communicate effectively (see, e.g.,
10 id. at 65, 69, 156).
The medical records only confirm the
11 Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he is not entitled to
12 equitable tolling based on any mental-health issues.
(See R. &
13 R. at 19-21.)
Finally, Petitioner objects to what he contends are two
15 factual mistakes made by the Magistrate Judge.
First, he seems
16 to insist that he filed his “Verified Accusation” “in March 2015
17 [NOT] December 2, 2015 as the Magistrate Judge set out.”
18 at 2.)
But the proof of service for that document is signed and
19 dated December 2, 2015, and the document itself refers to events
20 that happened after March 2015.
(See Lodged Doc. 8 at 2, 6-8.)3
21 He also asserts that he “did not admit to not filing his own
22 Notice of Appeal” (Objs. at 20), as the Magistrate Judge stated
GAF scores of between 61 and 70 indicate “some mild
symptoms (e.g., depressed mood and some insomnia) OR some
difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning . . .
but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful
interpersonal relationships.” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders 34 (revised 4th ed. 2000).
For this document the Court uses the pagination provided
by its Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system.
1 (see R. & R. at 3).
But Petitioner’s claims in the Petition rest
2 on his attorney’s not filing a notice of appeal for him, which
3 would not have prejudiced him had he filed his own.
Because the Petition is time barred for the reasons stated
5 in the R. & R., IT IS ORDERED that it is denied, Respondent’s
6 motion to dismiss is granted, and Judgment be entered dismissing
7 this action with prejudice.
9 DATED: March 9, 2017
BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?