Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00226/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00226-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE NOWLING,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14cv226-MMA (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 10]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS

[Doc. No. 11]

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 7]

DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

PETITION WITH PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 1]

vs.

AMY MILLER, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Kyle Nowling, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, challenging his underlying state court conviction. See Doc. No. 1. 

Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, contending that the statute of limitations

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) barred the petition as untimely. See Doc. No. 7. 

Petitioner filed an opposition. Doc. No. 9.

- 1 - 14cv226-MMA (WVG)

Case 3:14-cv-00226-MMA-WVG Document 12 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 5
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

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo

for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Gallo issued a thorough and well-reasoned

Report recommending the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition

as untimely. See Doc. No. 10. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation. See Doc. No. 11. 

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.

1989). 

2. Analysis

In his objections, Petitioner asserts two circumstances that he contends entitle

him to equitable tolling. For equitable tolling to apply, a petitioner must

demonstrate (1) “reasonable diligence” in pursuing his rights and (2) “extraordinary

circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on

time.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 653 (2010); Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d

1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). The petitioner “bears the burden of showing that this

extraordinary exclusion should apply to him.” Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799

(9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling under [the]

AEDPA is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule.” Miranda v. Castro, 292

F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

First, Petitioner asserts that the Court should equitably toll the statute of

limitations based on his appellate counsel’s failure to file a petition for direct review

of his conviction in the California Supreme Court. Although an attorney’s

- 2 - 14cv226-MMA (WVG)

Case 3:14-cv-00226-MMA-WVG Document 12 Filed 06/24/14 Page 2 of 5
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

sufficiently egregious misconduct may constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” to

warrant equitable tolling, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate both the requisite

egregious attorney misconduct and his own reasonable diligence. See Porter v.

Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2010); see Spitsyn, 345 F.3d at 800–02 (finding

the lawyer’s misconduct was sufficiently egregious to constitute an “extraordinary

circumstance” for the purpose of equitable tolling where the lawyer denied the

petitioner access to files, failed to prepare a petition, and did not respond to the

petitioner’s communications). Here, Petitioner sent letters dated April 9, 2012 and

April 12, 2012, requesting his attorney “re-open” his appeal by petitioning review to

the California Supreme Court. In a letter dated April 16, 2012—before the time for

appealing the Court of Appeal’s decision had expired—his appellate counsel

responded that due to the lack of merit of any potential appeal, he had “no plans to

re-open [Petitioner’s] case” and that Petitioner’s “appeal is over.” See Doc. No. 8 -

17 at 85. The letter also informed Petitioner that in order to pursue a claim for

ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must file a petition for writ of habeas

corpus and further cautioned:

Please remember that a petition for writ of habeas corpus must be filed

within a reasonable time; you cannot delay in raising a claim. . . .

Because your appeal is already over, if you are going to file a petition,

you must file it as soon as possible. 

Id. (emphasis in original). The behavior of Petitioner’s appellate counsel falls far

short of the “sufficiently egregious misconduct” required to constitute an

extraordinary circumstance for the purpose of equitable tolling. See Spitsyn, 345

F.3d at 800–01. 

Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate he acted with reasonable diligence in

pursuing his rights. Petitioner learned of the need to file a habeas petition in April

2012. Although Petitioner indicated in a letter dated May 1, 2012 that he had

already started drafting a habeas petition, he did not file his habeas petition in

California superior court until November 7, 2012—over 6 months later. See Doc.

- 3 - 14cv226-MMA (WVG)

Case 3:14-cv-00226-MMA-WVG Document 12 Filed 06/24/14 Page 3 of 5
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

No. 8-17 at 89. Petitioner does not allege any facts to excuse the delay or to

demonstrate his purported diligence. The Court therefore finds Petitioner did not act

with reasonable diligence to warrant equitable tolling. Cf. Holland, 560 U.S. at 653

(finding the petitioner was reasonably diligent where he prepared his own habeas

petition on the same day he discovered that his attorney failed to file a petition). 

Second, Petitioner asserts that his low-level reading skills are extraordinary

circumstances that warrant equitable tolling. However, Petitioner has not shown his

low-level reading skills caused his delay in filing his federal habeas petition. 

Indeed, Petitioner concedes that he has an 11th grade education and reads at an 8.7

grade level. See Pet. at 40; Objection at 4. Further, although Petitioner claims to

have received assistance from another inmate in drafting various filings including

“The Supplement, Opposition, and Objection” in this federal habeas case, Petitioner

managed to file his state habeas petition and write various letters to his attorney

regarding his case, despite his purported difficulties. Thus, Petitioner’s low-level

reading and comprehension skills do not constitute extraordinary circumstances to

justify equitable tolling. See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 800 F.2d 905, 909

(9th Cir. 1986); Hemenway v. Washington, 409 F. App’x 93, 94 (9th Cir. 2010);

Lopez v. Felker, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2008). 

The Court therefore OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court further DECLINES to issue

a certificate of appealability as to any claims or issues raised in his petition. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

- 4 - 14cv226-MMA (WVG)

Case 3:14-cv-00226-MMA-WVG Document 12 Filed 06/24/14 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

in its entirety, OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections, GRANTS Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition with prejudice. The Court

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 24, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14cv226-MMA (WVG)

Case 3:14-cv-00226-MMA-WVG Document 12 Filed 06/24/14 Page 5 of 5