Humberto Figueroa-Guizar v. Keeton
Filing
32
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Court Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Humberto Figueroa-Guizar, 18 MOTION to DISMISS filed by Keeton ;,referred to Judge Drozd,signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 05/8/18. Objections to F&R due by 6/11/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)
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
No. 17-cv-00504-DAD-SKO
Petitioner,
v.
KEETON, Warden,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Respondent.
16
(Doc. 1)
17
18
19
20
Petitioner, Humberto Figueroa-Guizar, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The Court referred the matter to the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.
21
22
23
On March 27, 2017, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus before this
Court. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely on August 7, 2017. Petitioner filed
24
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 13, 2017, and Respondent filed a reply to the
25
opposition on October 20, 2017.
26
On October 25, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston filed Findings
27
and Recommendations, in which she recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted,
28
1
1
because Petitioner failed to comply with 19 U.S.C. § 2244(d)’s one year limitations period. (Doc.
2
25 at 5.)
3
On November 20, 2017, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and
Recommendations in which he stated he is unable to read, write, or speak English, the prison at
4
which he is incarcerated has no Spanish-speaking clerks, the law library contains no materials for
5
6
Spanish-speaking inmates, and there were no inmates available to help him translate materials
7
into Spanish. (Doc. 26 at 5-7.) Petitioner maintained that he was not able to file documents for
8
his application for habeas relief until another inmate, William J. Long, noticed that he needed
9
help in the prison library and offered to assist him. Id. at 6. Based on these assertions, Petitioner
10
asked the Court for equitable tolling to excuse his failure to timely file his petition for writ of
11
habeas corpus.
12
13
14
On February 8, 2018, United States District Judge Dale A. Drozd declined to adopt the
Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 29.) Judge Drozd noted that Petitioner’s claims in his
15
objections alone did not establish sufficient grounds to grant equitable tolling. Id. at 2 (citing
16
Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006) (“a non-English speaking petitioner
17
seeking equitable tolling must, at a minimum, demonstrate that during the running of the AEDPA
18
19
time limitation, he was unable, despite diligent efforts, to procure either legal materials in his own
language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source.”)).
20
21
22
However, Judge Drozd noted that these claims had not been presented to the Court prior the
issuance of the Findings and Recommendations and found that Petitioner’s claims merited
23
granting him an opportunity to further develop facts with respect to equitable tolling. Id. at 2-3.
24
Judge Drozd declined to adopt the Findings and Recommendations and referred the matter back
25
to the Magistrate Judge for further factual development concerning equitable tolling. Id. at 3-4.
26
On April 3, 2018, Judge Thurston granted Petitioner 30 days leave to provide evidence
27
concerning whether Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling. (Doc. 30.) Although 30 days have
28
2
1
passed, Petitioner has not filed any evidence of equitable tolling with the Court. Based on the
2
foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss the petition for writ of habeas
3
corpus with prejudice.
4
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
5
6
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty
7
(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, either party may file
8
written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate
9
Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections, if any, shall be served and
10
11
filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure
to file objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District
12
13
14
Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,
923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 8, 2018
/s/
18
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?