Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02708/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02708-2/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

FRANK IRVIN MOPPINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2708 WBS GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the 2004 decision by the Board of

Parole Hearings (BPH) finding him unsuitable for parole. Pending before the court is

respondent’s March 23, 2007, motion to dismiss on grounds that this action is barred by the

statute of limitations.

In Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) the Ninth Circuit found

that the statute of limitations for a petition challenging the denial of parole ran from the date that

the petitioner received notice of the parole board’s denial of the petitioner’s administrative

appeal. Citing Exhibit 1, respondent argues that California Board of Appeals denied petitioner’s

appeal on September 9, 2004. The decision by the Board of Appeals is not attached to exhibit 1.

Accordingly, within ten days of the date of this order, respondent shall file a copy of this

Case 2:06-cv-02708-WBS-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 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

decision.

If the limitations period ran from September 9, 2004, then the instant action is not

timely. In his opposition to the pending motion, petitioner suggests that he is entitled to

equitable tolling. Petitioner claims that after the California Supreme Court denied his state

habeas petition on February 1, 2006, he was advised by the attorney representing him at his

parole suitability hearings that the attorney would file all further appeals. Petitioner claims that

he then sent all of the relevant transcripts to the attorney . Petitioner claims that his attorney did

not respond to calls from his wife or daughter or to letters from petitioner. Petitioner states that

the attorney who represented him on appeal is Kenneth Walton in Oakland, California.

When an attorney’s misconduct is sufficiently egregious, it may constitute an

“extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Spitsyn v.

Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2003)(remanding for determination of equitable tolling

where retained post-conviction counsel made affirmative statements that he would file federal

habeas petition but failed to do so, and where counsel would not release the file to petitioner

upon request). 

Petitioner is directed to file further briefing regarding his communications with

Mr. Walton. Petitioner shall file copies of all communications between him and Mr. Walton

regarding Mr. Walton’s representations that he would file “all further appeals.” If petitioner does

not have copies of these communications, or if these communications were oral, petitioner shall

file a declaration describing these communications including when they occurred. Petitioner

shall also inform the court whether Mr. Walton prepared the habeas petitions filed in state court

challenging the 2004 decision by the BPH. Finally, petitioner shall also inform the court what

prompted him to finally file his federal petition in November 2006. 

Following receipt of petitioner’s further briefing, the court shall determine

whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02708-WBS-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days of the date of this order, respondent shall file a copy of the

September 9, 2004, decision by the California Board of Appeals;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file the further

briefing discussed above.

DATED: 5/22/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

mop2708.fb

Case 2:06-cv-02708-WBS-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3