Lee v. Macomber
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/24/15 ORDERING that within 30 days, petitioner shall file the further briefing described in this order; respondent may file a reply to petitioner's briefing within 14 days thereafter. (Benson, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:14-cv-1667 KJM KJN P
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, petitioner is ordered to file
further briefing in support of his opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss.
On October 13, 2014, respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that this action is
barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 13.) On November 4, 2014, petitioner filed an
opposition. (ECF No. 14.) In the opposition, petitioner argues that he is entitled to equitable
The one-year statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition may be equitably tolled if
extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control prevent the prisoner from filing on time.
See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). A petitioner seeking equitable tolling must
establish two elements: “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U .S. 408, 418 (2005).
Petitioner first argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because of his mental illness.
Petitioner argues that he had to find someone to assist him with his legal work due to his mental
illness. Petitioner also attaches a declaration from inmate Hampton stating that inmate Hampton
helped petitioner with his legal work due to petitioner’s mental illness.
Petitioner’s opposition does not specifically address how his mental illness prevented him
from filing a timely federal petition. Petitioner also does not describe his mental illness and why
he could not prepare his own legal documents. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to file further
briefing addressing these issues.
Petitioner also argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was housed in
administrative segregation where he could not find any inmate to help him with his legal work
and was without access to his “legal work.”
Petitioner’s opposition does not specifically address how his placement in administrative
segregation prevented him from filing a timely federal habeas petition. Petitioner does not
specifically describe the dates when he was housed in administrative segregation. Petitioner also
does not specifically address why he could not obtain assistance from other inmates while he was
housed in administrative segregation. It is also unclear to the court whether petitioner is alleging
that he was denied access to his legal property while he was housed in administrative segregation.
Accordingly, petitioner is directed to file further briefing addressing these issues.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order,
petitioner shall file the further briefing described above; respondent may file a reply to
petitioner’s briefing within fourteen days thereafter.
Dated: April 24, 2015
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?