Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00462/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00462-1/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 - 03CV462 WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUY PHAM,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 03CV462 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Duy Pham’s renewed motion for relief from judgment

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) following remand from the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

(Doc. # 69). 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2003, Petitioner Duy Pham, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1). On June 19, 2003,

Petitioner–with the help of another inmate–advised the Court that he wished to amend his Petition to

include other exhausted issues. (Doc. # 11). On August 6, 2003, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 21). 

On August 20, 2003, Respondent moved to dismiss (Doc. # 24) Petitioner’s Amended Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and on February 2, 2004, the Court granted the motion because Petitioner

failed to file the Petition within the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) oneyear statute of limitations period. (Doc. # 34). On December 22, 2004, and January 25, 2004,

Case 3:03-cv-00462-WQH-JMA Document 73 Filed 10/31/07 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 - 03CV462 WQH (JMA)

Petitioner moved for relief from judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6), arguing that his

illiteracy, inability to speak English, and lack of a jailhouse lawyer precluded time-barring his Petition.

(Docs. # 42, 49). On January 13, 2005, and February 8, 2005, the Court denied Petitioner’s motions

on the grounds that statutory tolling did not apply. (Docs. # 44. 51). The Court did not address

equitable tolling. On February 1, 2005, Petitioner appealed. (Doc. # 47). 

On November 21, 2006, the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded this

Court’s Order denying Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. The Court of Appeal held:

The district court denied Pham’s motion without the benefit of Mendoza v. Carey, 449

F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that where a prisoner ‘alleged that he lacks

English language ability, was denied access to [native]-language legal materials, and

could not procure the assistance of a translator,’ those facts could constitute an

extraordinary circumstance, that ‘may entitle him to equitable tolling’) . . . .

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for reconsideration of

Pham’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion in light of Mendoza.

On January 5, 2007, the Court appointed counsel for Petitioner. (Doc. # 65). Thereafter, both

Respondent and Petitioner filed statements regarding further proceedings in district court, and each

requested that the Court set a briefing schedule for reconsideration of Petitioner’s motion for relief

from judgment. (Docs. # 64, 66).

On June 18, 2007, Petitioner filed an opening brief in the form of a renewed motion for relief

from judgment. (Doc. # 69). On July 24, 2007, Respondents filed a responsive brief opposing

Petitioner’s renewed motion for relief from judgment.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief from judgment dismissing his Amended Habeas

Petition because extraordinary circumstances warrant equitable tolling of the AEDPA’s one-year

statute of limitations. Specifically, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations because he is illiterate and did not have access to either Vietnamese-language

legal materials or translation assistance of English legal materials in prison during the running of the

statute of limitations. Petitioner contends that, at a minimum, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing

with respect to whether the facts of his case warrant equitable tolling. 

Respondents contend that Petitioner has not alleged facts sufficient to establish that Petitioner

is entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, Respondents contend that Petitioner’s renewed motion

Case 3:03-cv-00462-WQH-JMA Document 73 Filed 10/31/07 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

- 3 - 03CV462 WQH (JMA)

for relief from judgment should be denied without an evidentiary hearing. In the event that the Court

concludes that Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, Respondents contend that “the judicious

use of time and resources for the parties and the court would be for the court to grant [Petitioner] relief

on grounds of equitable tolling and set a briefing schedule for Respondent to file an Answer to the

Amended Petition filed August 6, 2003.” (Doc. # 72 at 1-2, 5-6).

“‘[A] litigant seeking equitable tolling [of the one-year AEDPA limitations period] bears the

burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that

some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.’” Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th

Cir. 2006) (citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005)). In Mendoza, the Court of Appeal for

the Ninth Circuit held that where a prison law-library lacks foreign-language legal materials and a

non-English-speaking petitioner is unable to obtain translation assistance despite diligent efforts, the

petitioner may be able establish extraordinary circumstances which would entitle him to equitable

tolling. Mendoza, 449 F.3d at 1069. The Court of Appeal held that “a non-English-speaking

petitioner seeking equitable tolling must, at a minimum, demonstrate that during the running of the

AEDPA time limitation, he was unable, despite diligent efforts, to procure either legal materials in his

own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source.” Id. at

1070.

In Petitioner’s two motions for relief from judgment (Docs. # 42, 50), Petitioner alleged that

his inability to speak English, lack of a jailhouse lawyer, and inability to procure Vietnamese legal

materials or translation assistance rendered him unable to file his Habeas Petitions within the one-year

AEDPA statute of limitations. After reviewing the briefing on remand, as well as Petitioner’s

previous Habeas Petitions and motions for relief from judgment, the Court finds that Petitioner has

alleged facts which entitle him to an evidentiary hearing with respect to equitable tolling. As in

Mendoza, Petitioner has alleged that “he lacks English language ability,” was denied access to

Vietnamese-language legal materials, and “could not procure the assistance of a translator during the

running of the AEDPA limitations period.” Mendoza, 449 F.3d at 1071.

In light of the Court’s finding that an evidentiary hearing is required, Respondents request that

the Court forgo an evidentiary hearing and instead grant Petitioner’s renewed motion for relief from

Case 3:03-cv-00462-WQH-JMA Document 73 Filed 10/31/07 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 - 03CV462 WQH (JMA)

judgment and issue a briefing schedule requiring Respondents to answer Petitioner’s Amended Habeas

Petition on the merits. (Doc. # 72 at 1-2, 5-6). After reviewing the allegations in this case and the

briefs following remand, Respondents’ request to forgo the evidentiary hearing and proceed with

adjudicating the merits of Petitioner’s Habeas Petition is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

It is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Petitioner’s renewed motion for relief from judgment (Doc. # 69) is GRANTED.

(2) Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 21) is deemed timely

filed.

(3) Respondent shall answer Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

# 21) on or before November 30, 2007.

(4) Pursuant to the local rules, this matter is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge Jan M.

Adler for Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00462-WQH-JMA Document 73 Filed 10/31/07 Page 4 of 4