Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00059/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00059-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST E. MOTLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

No. 2: 16-cv-0059 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss 

on grounds that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 10.) For the reasons 

stated herein, the parties are ordered to file further briefing addressing petitioner’s claim for 

equitable tolling. 

This action proceeds on the original petition filed, pursuant to the mailbox rule, on 

January 6, 2016. Petitioner challenges his 2010 conviction for first degree burglary, corporal 

injury to a co-parent, assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, misdemeanor child 

abuse, felon in possession of ammunition, felon in possession of a firearm, and two counts of 

assault with a firearm. Petitioner is serving a sentence of 15 years.

////

Case 2:16-cv-00059-MCE-KJN Document 17 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 7
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

Petitioner raises the following claims: 1) denial of right to confront accuser (claim 1); 

2) prosecutorial misconduct (claims 2 and 3); 3) state court erred in denying petitioner’s claims

(claim 4); and 4) ineffective assistance of counsel (claim 5). 

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).

In the opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioner argues that he is entitled to equitable 

tolling, in part, because he had to wait to file his habeas corpus petition in the California Court of 

Appeal until after he received a letter from the victim that had been admitted into evidence at an 

evidentiary hearing held in state court. For the reasons stated herein, the parties are ordered to 

file further briefing addressing this claim for equitable tolling. The background to this claim is as 

follows.

In claims two and three, petitioner alleges that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory 

evidence and committed misconduct. Petitioner alleges that he was convicted of various felonies 

with alleged use of a firearm against victims Calvin Lynn and Vanity Rainey. Petitioner alleges 

that at trial, Rainey testified that petitioner used a gun against both her and victim Lynn. 

Petitioner alleges that on November 19, 2013, he received a declaration from Rainey stating that 

she committed perjury when she testified that petitioner had a gun when he committed the crimes. 

Rainey also stated that she told the prosecutor before taking the witness stand that petitioner was 

never in possession of a gun. Rainey claimed that the prosecutor told her, “It’s okay. Just stick to 

the report.” Rainey also claimed that she asked the prosecutor if she could take her anxiety 

medication before she testified, and he told her, “Yes, just don’t tell the defense attorney.” 

Rainey stated that the medication had her so far gone that she was a puppet in the prosecutor’s 

hands.

Pursuant to the mailbox rule, on December 29, 2013, petitioner filed a habeas corpus 

petition in the Sacramento County Superior Court raising the claims raised in the instant action, 

Case 2:16-cv-00059-MCE-KJN Document 17 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 7
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

3

but for the claim challenging the state court’s denial of his claims. (Respondent’s Lodged 

Document 5.) On March 5, 2014, the trial court denied petitioner’s confrontation clause and 

ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Id.) On November 14, 2014 and January 23, 2015, the 

Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing addressing petitioner’s claims based on the Rainey 

declaration. (Id.) On February 9, 2015, the Superior Court denied the claims based on the Rainey 

declaration. (Id.) 

On May 31, 2015, pursuant to the mailbox rule, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in 

the California Court of Appeal. (Respondent’s Lodged Document 7.) On June 11, 2015, the 

California Court of Appeal denied this petition. (Respondent’s Lodged Document 8.)

On June 30, 2015, pursuant to the mailbox rule, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in 

the California Supreme Court. (Respondent’s Lodged Document 9) On December 16, 2015, the 

California Supreme Court denied this petition. (Respondent’s Lodged Document 10.)

In his opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, petitioner argues that the Superior 

Court relied on a letter written to him by victim Vanity Rainey in September 2013 to deny his 

habeas petition. (ECF No. 14 at 7.) Attached to the opposition is a copy of this letter, dated 

September 3, 2013. (Id. at 31-32.) It was apparently based on this letter that petitioner obtained 

the November 2013 declaration from Rainey stating that petitioner did not have a gun. 

In his opposition, petitioner argues that he could not file his habeas petition in the 

California Court of Appeal until he obtained Rainey’s September 2013 letter, relied on by the 

Superior Court. (Id. at 7.) Petitioner alleges that to obtain the letter, he had to go through the 

lawyer who represented him at the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Templeton. (Id.) Petitioner alleges 

that Mr. Templeton had to get the letter from the Superior Court, where it had been admitted into 

evidence. (Id. at 7-8.) Petitioner alleges that Mr. Templeton mailed him the letter on May 8, 

2015. (Id.) Attached to the opposition is an envelope addressed to petitioner from Mr. 

Templeton postmarked May 8, 2015. (Id. at 30.) 

Petitioner argues that he filed his habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal 

on May 31, 2015, which was shortly after he received the Rainey letter. To put petitioner’s 

argument in context, the undersigned herein sets forth Rainey’s September 2013 letter, attached 

Case 2:16-cv-00059-MCE-KJN Document 17 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 7
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

as an exhibit to the petition filed in the California Court of Appeal:

Dear Ernie, 

Hope all is well considering the circumstances. I have been trying 

to reach you for a while. I finally got your contact info from your 

mom. I just really want to apologize for everything that went 

down. I wish I could press rewind and change it all. The truth of 

the matter is I was truly hurt by everything you put me thru. Not 

only was I hurt, but I was completely numb. When I spoke with the 

district attorney, I let him know that a lot of things in the police 

report I had no memory of. He said, “it’s okay ... just stick to the 

report.” I was so upset. I asked him if I could take my medication 

before I took the stand and he said, “yes...just don’t tell the defense 

attorney...if she asks, say no.” I was so zooted [sic] out of my 

mind, I became a complete puppet and the DA knew it. I seen him 

at the Palms in Las Vegas last year and he tried to get me to his 

room to have sex with him...talking bout he was always attracted to 

me but couldn’t say anything during the case. Something about a 

conflict of interest! Anyway, the last 4 years have been so hard for 

me when I realized what I had done. I went on a downward spiral. 

I became addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol (real heavy 

alcohol) as a result of all of this. I couldn’t face myself. I had to 

find a way to numb the pain. By the grace of God, I got myself 

clean and sober...recently. That’s why it took me this long to 

contact you. I was in like a 4 year haze. Now that I’m myself 

again, I know that I have to do the right thing. It breaks my heart to 

look at our daughter and know that I took her father for my own 

selfish reasons. I have no intention no getting back together with 

you... that’s not what that is about. It’s about Hailey and me 

righting my wrongs. I have had so much bad karma and I know 

why. We have a daughter to raise and I can’t do it without you so 

please let me know what I can do to help your case. I spoke with 

your appeal attorney a while back but he did not lead me in the 

right direction. Please give me a call at *** *** ****. I won’t be 

at the return address for too much longer. I’m moving so I you 

need to write me back, just send it to your mom’s house. Once I get 

a permanent address, I will let you know. Take care, Vanity. 

(Respondent’s Lodged Document 7 at D-2 to D-3.)

The Superior Court found Rainey’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing to not be credible 

based, in part, on the September 2013 letter:

Rainey’s recantation of a vital aspect of her trial testimony after 

five years is highly suspicious. (See In re Hall (1981) 30 Cal.3d 

408, 418 [“we routinely view recantations with suspicion”].) This 

is especially true because Rainey’s statements and previous 

testimony were consistently contrary to her current version: 

Immediately after Petitioner assaulted her, Rainey reported to her 

mother that Petitioner hit Rainey with a gun; Rainey described the 

gun to the 911 dispatch officer; Rainey told medical staff that she 

was hit in the head with a gun; she reported to multiple law 

Case 2:16-cv-00059-MCE-KJN Document 17 Filed 08/04/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

enforcement officers that she was hit in the head with a gun; she 

testified at the preliminary hearing that Petitioner hit her in the face 

with a gun; and she testified at trial that Petitioner hit her in the face 

with a gun. Although Petitioner attempted to introduce evidence at 

trial that Rainey admitted to Kevin Brown that she lied in her trial 

testimony, Brown could only say, “She [Rainey] didn’t specifically 

say I lied and said it was a gun.” (RT 394.)

In addition, Rainey’s evidentiary hearing testimony did not explain 

the circumstantial evidence of Petitioner’s use of a gun: that bullets 

were found in Rainey’s bedroom the following day, which was 

consistent with Rainey’s previous testimony that Petitioner’s gun 

jammed. Finally, Rainey’s explanation for lying for the last five 

years is unconvincing: she was angry at Petitioner, that she was 

embarrassed about Calvin Lynn not defending her, and she had to 

“save face.” More telling is her 2013 letter to Petitioner, saying 

that she could not raise their daughter without Petitioner and 

asking “what I can do to help your case.” 

Although Hailey Rainey and Lynn testified that they did not see 

Petitioner with a gun, both were impeached with their prior 

statements in which they described Petitioner having a gun. Due to 

the passage of time and Hailey Rainey’s age, her testimony at the 

evidentiary hearing was not credible. Similarly, due to the passage 

of time, Lynn’s original 2009 statement was more credible.

Under these circumstances, Rainey’s recantation does not 

undermine confidence in Petitioner’s conviction. Therefore, 

Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 

false evidence was presented at his trial. 

(Respondent’s Lodged Document 6 at 6-7 (emphasis added).)

In his habeas petition filed in the California Court of Appeal, petitioner argued that the 

Superior Court took statements in Rainey’s September 2013 letter “out of context” when relying 

on the letter to reject the credibility of Rainey’s evidentiary hearing testimony. (Respondent’s 

Lodged Document 7 at p. 4-S.) Petitioner argued, 

Next the referee concluded that Ms. Rainey’s recantation about 

petitioner not having a gun was highly suspicious because she 

wrote him a letter stating that “she could not raise their daughter 

without petitioner and asking ‘what can I do to help your case.” 

(Attached Ex. C, p. 7.) The referee reads Ms. Rainey’s letter out of 

context and not as a “whole.” Specifically, Ms. Rainey starts off 

her letter by stating that she really apologizes for everything that 

went down concerning the trial. (Attached Exhibit D. p. 2.) Ms. 

Rainey further stated that she told the district attorney that she had 

no memory of a lot of things in the police report, and that the 

district attorney told her to just stick to the report. (Id.) Ms. Rainey 

continues in her letter stating that she was in a four year haze from 

drugs and alcohol as a result of how she sent petitioner to prison. 

Case 2:16-cv-00059-MCE-KJN Document 17 Filed 08/04/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

(Id. at pp. 2-3.) And, Ms. Rainey stated that she felt she had to do 

the right thing now she was off of drugs and alcohol. (Id. at p. 3.)

What is crucial to note about Ms. Rainey’s letter is that her 

statement -- “she could not raise their daughter without petitioner” 

–was not made because she just wanted petitioner out of prison, but 

rather Mr. Rainey made that statement because she knew she 

unjustly took her daughter’s father away for her “own selfish 

reasons.” As Ms. Rainey states in relevant Part: I have to do the 

right thing. It breaks my heart to look at our daughter and know 

that I took her father for ‘my own self reasons.’” (Attached Ex. D. 

p. 3.) Indeed, Ms. Rainey made it clear in her letter and in her 

testimony that “her own self reasons,” id., was a result of her being 

hurt by everything that petitioner had put her through with the 

infidelities and physical abuse (Id. at p. 2; see also attached Exhibit 

A, ¶ 8; attached Ex. A. pp. 28), not because petitioner had a gun. 

Thus Ms. Rainey’s statement – “Please let me know what I can do 

to help your case” (attached Ex. D p. 3.) – was not made as a part of 

a sinister plot to get petitioner out of prison, but rather it was as a 

normal statement made by a person who was willing to make her 

wrong right by telling the truth. 

Simply put, because petitioner’s case is the subject of Ms. Rainey’s 

wrongdoing, a reasonable or normal response by Ms. Rainey would 

be for her to ask petitioner “what can I do to help your case.”

(Id.at 4-S to 45-V.)

Petitioner made the same arguments in the petition filed in the California Supreme Court. 

(Respondent’s Lodged Document 9 at 4S to 4V.) 

A denial of access to legal materials may be grounds on which to find equitable tolling. 

See Walderon-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 2009); Lott v. Mueller, 304 

F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002.) However, in order to obtain equitable tolling based on being denied 

access to legal materials, a prisoner is still required to demonstrate that he acted diligently in 

pursuing his rights. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010).

As noted by respondent in the reply to petitioner’s opposition, petitioner has not 

demonstrated when he first requested that counsel obtain the letter from the Superior Court or 

why petitioner could not have requested the letter from the court himself. Accordingly, petitioner 

is ordered to file further briefing addressing these issues. If petitioner has any documents 

demonstrating when he made this request to counsel, he shall include them with his further 

briefing. Respondent will be granted an opportunity to file a response to petitioner’s further 

Case 2:16-cv-00059-MCE-KJN Document 17 Filed 08/04/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

briefing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date of this 

order, petitioner shall file the further briefing described above; within fourteen days thereafter, 

respondent may file a reply to petitioner’s further briefing. 

Dated: August 4, 2016

Mot59.fb

Case 2:16-cv-00059-MCE-KJN Document 17 Filed 08/04/16 Page 7 of 7