Humberto Figueroa-Guizar v. Keeton

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING Petitioner Leave to Provide Evidence Concerning Entitlement to Equitable Tolling Within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/3/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HUMBERTO FIGUEROA-GUIZAR,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
v.
KEETON, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00504-DAD-JLT (HC)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO
PROVIDE EVIDENCE CONCERNING
ENTITLEMENT TO EQUITABLE TOLLING
[THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE]

17
18

On October 25, 2017, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Respondent’s

19

motion to dismiss the petition for violating the statute of limitations. Petitioner filed objections on

20

November 20, 2017, and Respondent did not file a reply. On February 8, 2018, in light of Petitioner’s

21

objections, the District Judge declined to adopt the Findings and Recommendations and referred the

22

matter back for further factual development concerning equitable tolling.

23

The District Judge noted that Petitioner had stated in his objections that he is unable to read,

24

write, or speak English, that the prison at which he has been incarcerated had no Spanish-speaking

25

clerks, that the law library has no materials available to inmates in Spanish, and that there were no

26

inmates available to help him translate legal materials into Spanish. (Doc. 26 at 5-7.) Petitioner stated

27

it was only after another inmate, William J. Long, noticed that he needed help in the prison library and

28

offered to assist him that he was able to file any documents in connection with his application for writ
1

1

of habeas corpus. (Doc. 26 at 6.) The District Judge found that these facts alone did not establish

2

sufficient grounds to grant equitable tolling. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.

3

2006) (“a non-English-speaking petitioner seeking equitable tolling must, at a minimum, demonstrate

4

that during the running of the AEDPA time limitation, he was unable, despite diligent efforts, to

5

procure either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library

6

personnel, or other source”). However, the District Judge noted that these facts had not been

7

presented before the issuance of the Findings and Recommendations. The District Judge found that

8

Petitioner’s assertions merited granting him an opportunity to further develop the facts with respect to

9

the issue of equitable tolling. Therefore, the matter was referred back to grant Petitioner an

10

opportunity to provide evidence demonstrating entitlement to equitable tolling.

11

Consistent with the District Judge’s order, the Court will grant Petitioner an opportunity to

12

submit any and all evidence in his possession in order to show his language barrier entitles him to

13

equitable tolling. Specifically, he is directed to the relevant time period of August 12, 2014 (the

14

commencement of the limitations period), to May 17, 2016 (the date of filing of the first state habeas

15

petition). It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling. Espinoza-Matthews

16

v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2005). Respondent will be granted an opportunity to

17

oppose Petitioner’s claim for equitable tolling.
ORDER

18
19

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

20

1) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this Order to submit any
and all evidence concerning his entitlement to equitable tolling; and

21
22

2) Respondent is GRANTED twenty-one days from the date of service of Petitioner’s filing to
file an opposition to Petitioner’s submission, if any.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 3, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2