Williams v. Lizarraga

Filing 57

ORDER VACATING August 25, 2021 Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 9/8/2021.(Martin-Gill, S)

Case 1:18-cv-00748-AWI-HBK Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00748-AWI-HBK
ORDER VACATING AUGUST 25, 2021
ORDER

v.
(Doc. No. 55)
JOE LIZARRAGA,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner initiated this action by filing a pro se writ of habeas corpus on May 26, 2018.

18

(Doc. No. 1). Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. (Doc. No. 13). Petitioner

19

appeared to concede his petition was filed beyond AEDPA’s statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 19

20

at 1-3, Doc. No. 20 at 3). The previously assigned magistrate judge recommended that the

21

motion to dismiss be denied but allowed Respondent to renew the timeliness issue in his answer

22

to the petition. (Doc. No. 20). The District Court adopted these findings and recommendations in

23

full. (Doc. No. 21). Respondent renewed his timeliness arguments in his answer to the petition,

24

which also addressed the merits of the petition. (Doc. No. 31 at 16-30). On November 13, 2020,

25

the former assigned magistrate judge appointed Petitioner counsel. (Doc. No. 40). After being

26

granted extensions of time, Petitioner moved to file a limited reply to Respondent’s answer,

27

addressing the timeliness argument only. (Doc. Nos. 43, 47, 49, 51, 52). The Court granted

28

Petitioner’s motion (Doc. No. 53) and Petitioner filed a reply limited to timeliness. (Doc. No.

Case 1:18-cv-00748-AWI-HBK Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2
1

54).

2

On August 25, 2021, the undersigned issued an order finding that despite Petitioner being

3

entitled to some statutory tolling, the petition was time-barred under AEDPA’s statute of

4

limitations and directed Petitioner to expand the record and make arguments to demonstrate that

5

he should be entitled to equitable tolling. (Doc. No. 55 at 12-15). On September 7, 2021,

6

Petitioner filed objections to this Court’s August 25, 2021 Order. (Doc. No. 56). In his

7

objections, Petitioner argues that the undersigned did not have the authority as a magistrate judge

8

to issue an order finding that the petition is statutorily time-barred. (Id. at 8). Petitioner’s

9

objection is well taken. Accordingly, the Court will vacate its August 25, 2021 order. (Doc. No.

10

55).
The Court will consider Petitioner’s timeliness arguments contained in his reply (Doc. No.

11
12

54) and objections (Doc. No. 56) and, if appropriate, will issue findings and recommendations

13

addressing the timeliness issue in due course. In the event the Court finds the petition statutorily

14

time-barred, Petitioner will have the opportunity to object to the findings and recommendations

15

and, if appropriate, address equitable tolling at that time.

16

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

17

This Court’s August 25, 2021 order (Doc. No. 56) is VACATED.

18
19
20

Dated:

September 8, 2021
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2