Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01415/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01415-1/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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_11\11-12\Luiz\Civil\11-cv-1415 West v. Warden\11cv1415-DenyMotion.wpd, 82311 -1- 11cv1415

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEKE D. WEST, Civil No. 11cv1415-IEG (WVG)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES

BEYOND PETITIONER’S CONTROL

v.

WARDEN OF DELANO PRISON,

Respondent.

On June 27, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, accompanied by a Motion for Extension of

Time and a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (Doc. No. 1.)

On June 30, 2010, the Court notified Petitioner that the Petition was subject to dismissal

for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement because Petitioner had not paid the $5.00 filing

fee and had not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) Petitioner was

also notified that the Petition was subject to dismissal because Petitioner had failed to use a

court-approved habeas petition form. (Id.) The Court at that time also denied the Motion for

Extension of Time and the Motion Stay and Abeyance. (Id.) Petitioner was notified that in

order to avoid dismissal of this action, he had to satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a First

Amended Petition on a court-approved form on or before September 12, 2011. (Id.) Petitioner

was provided with a blank amended petition form and a blank in forma pauper application along

with a copy of that Order. (Id.)

Case 3:11-cv-01415-IEG-WVG Document 5 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 2
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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_11\11-12\Luiz\Civil\11-cv-1415 West v. Warden\11cv1415-DenyMotion.wpd, 82311 -2- 11cv1415

Petitioner has now filed a Motion for Documenting Circumstances Beyond Petitioner’s

Control for Future Equitable Tolling Request. (Doc. No. 4.) Petitioner indicates, as he did in

his original Motion for extension of time, that he is “out to court on a child custody matter,” and

has been housed at the George Bailey Detention Facility for the past four months. (Pet.’s Mot.

at 1.) He states that he has been separated from his legal and personal property for that entire

time, which has remained behind at Kern Valley State Prison where he is usually housed. (Id.)

Petitioner states that he is concerned that his one-year statute of limitations will expire before

he is returned to Kern Valley State Prison, and states that until he is reunited with his legal and

personal property he has “no means of preparing and submitting a meaningful legal brief on my

behalf to challenge the illegality of my conviction and Prison Sentence.” (Id.) 

Petitioner has been provided with appropriate forms necessary to avoid dismissal of this

action and the deadline to fill them out and return them to the Court in order to avoid dismissal

will not expire until September 12, 2011. Petitioner has not established that he is unable to fill

out the amended habeas petition form, which does not require legal briefing, without access to

his legal and personal property. Nor has he alleged that he has requested access to that property

and the request denied. Thus, the Court will not extend the deadline to submit those forms in

order to avoid dismissal of this action. Furthermore, the information contained in the present

Motion is already contained in Petitioner’s previous filings, and Petitioner has therefore

adequately made a record of his contentions. According, the instant Motion is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner’s Motion for Documenting Circumstances Beyond Petitioner’s Control for

Future Equitable Tolling Request is DENIED. Petitioner is once again NOTIFIED that in order

to avoid dismissal of this action he must satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a First

Amended Petition on a court-approved form on or before September 12, 2011.

DATED: August 23, 2011 _________________________________________

Chief Judge Irma E. Gonzalez

United States District Court

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-01415-IEG-WVG Document 5 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2