Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01873/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01873-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE R. CORDERO,

Petitioner,

v.

HOREL, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1873 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT

TO EQUITABLE TOLLING, DISMISSING

GROUND FOUR OF PETITION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, AND REFERRING MATTER

BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

[Doc. 19]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 20, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

the Motion to Dismiss based on a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) be DENIED. This Findings

and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to

be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On October 22, 2007, Respondent filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. Petitioner filed a reply on December 6, 2007. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Respondent’s

and Petitioner’s reply, the Court finds that Respondent’s objections have merit.

The Findings and Recommendation recommended that Petitioner be granted equitable

tolling based on the fact that Petitioner’s appellate attorney failed to inform him that his petition

Case 1:06-cv-01873-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/03/08 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

2

for review was denied by the California Supreme Court until approximately two months of the

federal limitations period elapsed. (Court Doc. 19, at 5-9.) In addition, the Court granted

Petitioner two additional months of equitable tolling for the time it took for Petitioner to obtain

his case records. (Id. at 9.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner was entitled to

equitable tolling for the first four months of his limitations period and such tolling rendered the

instant petition timely. (Id.) Respondent submits that even if these circumstances were

“extraordinary” that is not enough. In addition, Petitioner must show that he diligently pursued

his rights throughout the entire limitations period. Respondent submits that on this record,

Petitioner simply has not done so. The Court agrees. 

Specifically, in this case, after Petitioner completed the exhaustion of his state court

remedies on March 15, 2006, he waited over seven months to file his federal petition, on October

30, 2006. This negates a finding that Petitioner acted with the requisite diligence, as all of

Petitioner’s claims were fully developed and there is no valid justification for this substantial

delay. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 410-411, 419 (2005) (Supreme court faulted

Pace for delaying several years before commencing final round of state post conviction review,

and second for delaying five additional months after the conclusion of the state court remedies

before filing the federal petition); Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278 (2004)

(acknowledging that it should not take long to take claims for collateral relief that have already

been investigated and prepared to a different court); Melancon v. Kaylo, 259 F.3d 401, 407-408

(5 Cir. 2001) (finding a petitioner did not expediently file his federal habeas petition and th

therefore would not receive equitable tolling because he waited four months after the state

supreme court denied relief before he filed his federal petition); Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d

398, 403 (5 Cir. 1999) (finding that petitioner was not diligent and equitable tolling was

th

unavailable because petitioner waited six months after being notified that the state petition was

denied before filing his federal petition). In addition to this delay, Petitioner took over four

months after he received his case records on July 14, 2004, to file his first state habeas petition. 

(Lodged Doc. No. 5.) Again, this unexplained delay demonstrates a lack of diligence on

Petitioner’s part, negating a finding of equitable principles. See e.g. Lindo v. Lefever, 193

Case 1:06-cv-01873-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/03/08 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 This does not foreclose the possibility that certain circumstances Petitioner classifies as state-created 1

impediments may warrant a later start of the limitations period. 

3

F.Supp.2d 659, 663 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (delay in receiving notification of court’s dismissal of

habeas petition constituted an extraordinary circumstance, but petitioner did not qualify for

equitable toling because he failed to act diligently once he received notice of the decision);

Donovan v. Maine, 276 F.3d 87, 94 (1 Cir. 2002) (rejecting equitable tolling because the st

petitioner delayed for nearly two months after he received transcripts). As these factual

circumstances demonstrate that Petitioner did not act with due diligence in pursuing his rights, he

is not entitled to equitable tolling. 

Moreover, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the “extraordinary circumstances” were

the actual cause of his untimeliness. Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9 Cir. 2003); Lott v. th

Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 922-923 (9 Cir. 2002); Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. th

2000). Here, Petitioner, undisputably, learned that his state appeal was denied and he received

his records no later than July 14, 2004. (Doc. 19, at 9.) This left Petitioner with nearly eight

months of the limitations period, plus any applicable time for statutory tolling, within which to

exhaust his state remedies and file a federal petition. But for Petitioner’s seven-month delay in

seeking federal habeas relief, the petition could have been timely. Petitioner has demonstrated

1

no nexus between the extraordinary circumstances and his failure to file a timely federal petition,

and equitable tolling is not warranted. See e.g. Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 715-716 (5 Cir. th

1999) (finding causation was not demonstrated where the prisoner “still had over six months to

complete his federal habeas petition” after the termination of the allegedly extraordinary

circumstances). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued September 20, 2007, is NOT

ADOPTED, with respect to the equitable tolling analysis;

2. The Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED with respect to the dismissal of

Ground Four of the petition, and Ground Four is DISMISSED, without prejudice;

and,

Case 1:06-cv-01873-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/03/08 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

4

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for a determination of whether

Petitioner is entitled to a later trigger date based on an alleged State-created

impediments.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01873-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/03/08 Page 4 of 4