Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00312-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELIAN BREWER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0312 MCE GGH P

vs.

DARRYL ADAMS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, proceeding with appointed counsel, has filed a petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2254. On July 20, 2006, respondent’s motion to file an amended answer and motion to

dismiss, filed on May 30, 2006, came on for hearing. Matthew Alger appeared on behalf of

petitioner. Jane Kirkland represented respondent. 

Petitioner sought leave to amend to allege an affirmative defense, after the filing

of a responsive pleading, based on a change in the controlling law, in this instance, a case

decided on January 10, 2006, impacting the applicable statute of limitations in habeas actions in

California. See Evans v. Chavis, __ U.S.___, 126 S.Ct. 846 (2006).

Following oral argument, the undersigned informed the parties, that leave would

be granted for petitioner to file an amended answer because leave to amend is liberally granted in

federal courts, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and because respondent was not dilatory in bringing its

Case 2:02-cv-00312-MCE-CHS Document 51 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

motion and submitting a proposed amended answer, following the pertinent change in controlling

law.

With respect to respondent’s motion to dismiss this action as barred by the statute

of limitations in light of Chavis, supra, petitioner had set a subsequent motion for discovery and

an evidentiary hearing for August 3, 2006, seeking to establish thereby petitioner’s entitlement to

equitable tolling for the delay between the filing of petitioner’s second state court habeas petition

and his third state supreme court habeas petition, which petitioner avers occurred due to prison

lockdowns. 

At the hearing, the undersigned granted petitioner’s motion for discovery with

respect to the proposed interrogatories and requests for production of documents related to

discovery of the lockdown periods summarized in the discovery motion. Respondent was

granted thirty days to respond to the discovery requests. Following the response, petitioner was

to determine whether an expansion of the record would suffice in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. 

If so, the parties could either stipulate to an expansion of the record or petitioner could file a

motion to expand the record, as appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s May 30, 2006, motion to file an amended answer is granted and

the Clerk of the Court is to enter the May 30, 2006, proposed answer to the first amended petition

in the docket as filed on the date of this order;

2. Petitioner’s motion for discovery, filed on July 1, 2006, is granted and

respondent is to file responses/production thereto within thirty days, after which, the parties must

stipulate to an expansion of the record or petitioner must make any motion to expand the record

within thirty days thereafter, or, within the same time frame, petitioner must renew his motion for

an evidentiary hearing, as appropriate; and

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00312-MCE-CHS Document 51 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Findings and Recommendations resolving the merits of respondent’s motion will be 1

filed subsequent to expansion of the record and/or evidentiary hearing.

3

3. Petitioner’s motion for discovery and evidentiary hearing, set for August 3,

2006, is vacated from the court’s calendar. 

1

DATED: 7/25/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

brew0312.ord

Case 2:02-cv-00312-MCE-CHS Document 51 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 3