Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01418/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01418-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LAVERY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv1418-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

VIMAL SINGH, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF No. 15)

be granted and the Motion for an Order to Show Cause, Discovery, an Evidentiary Hearing,

and Appointment of Counsel filed by Petitioner (ECF No. 18) be denied. (ECF No. 19).

BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2011, Petitioner Joseph Lavery filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

asserting seven grounds for relief stemming from his 2001 conviction in San Diego Superior

Court. (ECF No. 1). On June 27, 2011, Petitioner also filed a Motion for an Order to Show

Cause, Discovery, Evidentiary Hearing, and Appointment of Counsel stating that he needed

medical records, legal assistance, and an evidentiary hearing to establish his poor mental health

condition. (ECF No. 3). 

On August 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge ordered additional briefing by both parties

regarding Petitioner’s mental health condition. (ECF No. 8). The Magistrate Judge ordered

- 1 - 11cv1418-WQH-BLM

Case 3:11-cv-01418-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

Respondents to conduct an “independent investigation into Petitioner’s competence” and

submit a response that includes “relevant medical records.” Id. at 3. On October 5, 2011,

Respondent filed responsive briefing including a lodgement of Petitioner’s relevant medical

records. (ECF Nos. 10, 11). On October 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s

opposition in which he acknowledges receipt of Respondent’s October 5, 2011 lodgements and

states that he “has refused and declined treatment for years” for his “mental disease and

disorder.” (ECF No. 12 at 2). Petitioner states that he “hates counseling group attendance

treatment and medication therapy treatment” and has “chose[n] to self-heal.” Id. at 4.

On November 29, 2011, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner failed to show “any

relevant and recent evidence of current incompetence, other than his own declaration, which

is refuted by legitimate medical records” and denied Petitioner’s motion for an order to show

cause, discovery, evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 14). 

On December 20, 2011, Respondent Vimal Singh filed a Motion to Dismiss on the

grounds that Petitioner’s claims are untimely and procedurally defaulted. (ECF No. 15). On

January 5, 2012, Petitioner filed an opposition requesting that the Court “grant equitable tolling

per 28 USC 2244 based on the fact that he suffers from a mental disease/disorder which

prevented him from filing a timely... petition.” (ECF No. 17). On January 5, 2012, Petitioner

filed a second Motion for an Order to Show Cause, Discovery, Evidentiary Hearing, and

Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 18). 

On May 7, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and the Motion

requesting an Order to Show Cause, Discovery, an Evidentiary Hearing, and Appointment of

Counsel be denied. (ECF No. 19). The Magistrate Judge found the Petition to be untimely and

procedurally defaulted and that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. 

On June 1, 2012, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation in

which he reiterated the argument that his poor mental health prevented him from filing a timely

federal petition. (ECF No. 20). Petitioner states that he did not receive the Magistrate Judge’s

August 16, 2011 order requesting briefing on Petitioner’s mental health and that he did not

- 2 - 11cv1418-WQH-BLM

Case 3:11-cv-01418-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

receive Respondent’s October 5, 2011 lodgement of medical records. Petitioner attached

medical records dated 1992 and 2001-2003 “as evidentiary documentation... for equitable

tolling.” Id. at 4, 12-33. 

DISCUSSION

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections

are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation and the record in its entirety. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition in

this Court more than eight and a half years after the one-year statute of limitations applicable

to federal habeas petitions. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the medical records

submitted by both Respondent and Petitioner fail to demonstrate that Petitioner suffers from

any mental disorder which precluded him from filing a timely federal petition. Petitioner states

that he did not receive the Magistrate Judge’s August 16, 2011 Order to submit evidence

addressing Petitioner’s mental health. Petitioner had the opportunity to submit such evidence

in his reply to Respondent’s briefing on that matter and in his objection to the Report and

Recommendation which outlines the content of the August 16, 2011 Order. Petitioner did

submit mental health records with his Petition (ECF No. 1, Exh. C) and objections (ECF No.

20 at 12-33). These records do not address Petitioner’s mental health for the relevant tolling

period in the eight and a half years prior to his 2011 filing in federal court. The Magistrate

Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner failed to show that his medical condition, and not his

- 3 - 11cv1418-WQH-BLM

Case 3:11-cv-01418-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/08/12 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

own lack of diligence, was the proximate cause of his untimeliness. The Magistrate Judge

correctly concluded that the limitations period should not be equitably tolled for Petitioner. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that federal habeas relief is unavailable to

Petitioner because his claims are procedurally defaulted. The Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that Petitioner’s alleged mental disorder does not constitute cause to excuse the

default. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner failed to show any prejudice

that would excuse the default. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that no miscarriage

of justice would result if Petitioner’s claims are not heard by this Court on the merits. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner’s motion for an order to show

cause, discovery, evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel should be denied for the

same reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s November 29, 2011 Order, specifically that

Petitioner has failed to show such evidence of mental incompetence that would require the

Court to grant any of the requested relief. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is

adopted in its entirety. The Motion for an Order to Show Cause, Discovery, Evidentiary

Hearing, and Appointment of Counsel filed by Petitioner (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. The

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 

DATED: August 8, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv1418-WQH-BLM

Case 3:11-cv-01418-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/08/12 Page 4 of 4