Doolin v. Wong
Filing
66
ORDER Granting Reconsideration Of Petitioners Motion For Interim Equitable Tolling And Vacating Schedule For Further Equitable Tolling, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/17/2011. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KEITH ZON DOOLIN,
10
11
12
Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL MARTEL, Acting Warden
of San Quentin State Prison,
13
Respondent.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:09-CV-01453-AWI-P
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Order Granting Reconsideration of
Petitioner’s Motion for Interim
Equitable Tolling and Vacating
Schedule for Further Equitable
Tolling
15
16
On March 9, 2011, the Phase I-B Case Management and Budget Plan for
17
Petitioner Keith Zon Doolin (“Doolin”) was approved. The Phase 1-B Budget
18
includes tasks necessary to prepare and file Doolin’s federal habeas petition,
19
extends through the determination of exhaustion and abeyance.
20
Doolin first sought federal habeas corpus relief August 17, 2009, and the
21
Federal Defender was appointed to represent him October 14, 2009. The parties
22
agreed the statute of limitations (“SOL”) would expire October 5, 2010, one year
23
after the denial of certiorari on Doolin’s direct appeal. During the investigation
24
of Doolin’s case, the Federal Defender discovered a conflict which required them
25
to withdraw from their representation, and new counsel was appointed under
26
the Criminal Justice Act to represent Doolin on June 15, 2010.
1
The Court determined seven months of equitable tolling was reasonable,
2
and extended the statute of limitations for Doolin’s federal habeas petition to
3
April 27, 2011. The parties subsequently stipulated to additional equitable tolling
4
to July 20, 2011, based on the unexpected illness of one of Doolin’s counsel.
5
After Doolin’s Phase 1-B Budget was approved, the United States Supreme
6
Court issued Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (April 4, 2011),
7
which limited the evidence a federal court can consider in determining whether a
8
petitioner has met the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). On April 7, 2011,
9
an order was issued in this case, suspending all work on issues affected by
10
11
Pinholster, and requesting supplemental briefing regarding the budget.
Doolin filed a motion for interim equitable tolling, seeking additional
12
tolling of 30 days or such other date as the Court may set. The Warden opposed
13
interim tolling, and by implication any further equitable tolling. Doolin’s motion
14
for interim equitable tolling was denied without prejudice May 31, 2011, as it was
15
unclear prior to receipt of the supplemental briefing the extent of work which
16
would be justified during the pre-petition period. An expedited briefing
17
schedule regarding further equitable tolling was established to resolve the matter
18
after issuance of the order amending the budget and prior to the current due date
19
for Doolin’s petition.
20
Doolin’s supplemental brief regarding his Phase 1-B budget was filed June
21
14, 2011. An order granting amendment in part of the Phase 1-B Budget, and
22
denying without prejudice certain items requiring additional information, is
23
issued under seal concurrently with this order. In light of the tasks authorized in
24
the amended budget, and the tasks which require additional information prior to
25
determining whether additional funding will be justified, Doolin’s motion for
26
equitable tolling is granted.
O Equ ita bleTo lling3 D ln
2
1
Based on the filings of the parties, the Court determines that additional
2
equitable tolling is justified in this case due to the suspension of work
3
precipitated by Pinholster. Ninety days of additional tolling is determined to be
4
reasonable in light of the facts of this case. The briefing schedule for further
5
equitable tolling, established in the Order Denying Without Prejudice Petitioner’s
6
Motion for Interim Equitable Tolling (Doc. 63) is vacated. Doolin’s federal habeas
7
petition is due on or before October 18, 2011.
8
The schedule following the filing of Doolin’s federal petition is similarly
9
amended: the parties shall meet and confer for the purpose of discussing their
10
respective positions about the exhaustion status of the petition, and shall file a
11
Joint Statement on Exhaustion by November 17, 2011. Should the parties be
12
unable to agree about the exhaustion status of any claim(s) in the petition, Doolin
13
shall file, concurrently with the joint statement, a supplemental declaration
14
setting forth where in the state filings he contends the exhaustion requirement
15
was satisfied. A case management conference shall be held November 28, 2011,
16
at 3:00 p.m., to discuss the subsequent litigation schedule. The conference shall
17
be held telephonically, although local counsel may elect to appear in person.
18
Counsel for Doolin shall initiate the conference call, if necessary.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
DATED:
June 17, 2011
23
/s/ Anthony W. Ishii
24
Chief United States District Judge
25
26
O Equ ita bleTo lling3 D ln
3
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?