Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00800/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00800-1/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

18-cv-0800-AJB-LL

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

Mon Smann,

Petitioner,

v.

Daniel Paramo, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-cv-0800-AJB-LL

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT & 

RECOMMENDATION; (Doc. No. 10);

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 7); 

and 

(3) DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

HABEAS PETITION (Doc. No. 1).

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

challenging his 2004 convictions. Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing Petitioner’s 

claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations. That motion was referred to a 

magistrate judge for a Report & Recommendation, (“R&R”). The R&R recommends the 

Court grant the dismissal motion and dismiss Petitioner’s petition. Petitioner objected to 

the R&R, presenting new medical records and asserting the statute of limitations should be 

tolled. For the reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R’s conclusions, 

(Doc. No. 10), GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 7), and DISMISSES

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without leave to amend, (Doc. No. 1). 

Case 3:18-cv-00800-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-cv-0800-AJB-LL

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

I. BACKGROUND

The factual background of Petitioner’s case was thoroughly explained in the R&R, 

and thus the Court only reiterates the facts as relevant to this motion. (Doc. No. 10 at 2–3.) 

Petitioner was convicted of murder in 2004. He appealed his conviction to the California 

appellate and Supreme Court. In April and August of 2006, both courts affirmed the 

judgment, respectively. Petitioner then waited until October 21, 2015, to file his first habeas 

petition in superior court. On June 17, 2017, he filed his second habeas petition in superior 

court. And on November 3, 2017, he filed his third habeas petition in superior court. All 

three petitions were denied. Petitioner re-filed his third habeas petition in the California 

court of appeal, which denied it on January 22, 2018. He then filed a habeas petition in the 

California Supreme Court, which denied it on March 28, 2018. He filed his habeas petition 

with this Court on April 25, 2018.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

“The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The “statute makes 

it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Schmidt 

v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225–26 & n. 5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna–

Tapia to habeas review).

III. DISCUSSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss argues Petitioner’s habeas petition must be 

dismissed as time-barred. (Doc. No. 7.) The R&R agrees, recommending this Court grant 

the motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition because it falls outside the one-year statute 

of limitations imposed by the AEDPA. (Doc. No. 10 at 3.) Petitioner argued in opposition 

that the time limit should be tolled due to extraordinary circumstances. (Doc. No. 9 at 3–

5.) However, the R&R finds Petitioner’s excuses to not rise to that level. (Doc. No. 10 at 

9.) In his objections to the R&R, Petitioner argues that equitable tolling should apply and 

Case 3:18-cv-00800-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-cv-0800-AJB-LL

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

provides additional medical records during the time when which the tolling period was 

running: November 2006, to November 2007. (Doc. No. 11.) Because Petitioner does not 

dispute that his petition is untimely, the Court ADOPTS those conclusions made by the 

magistrate judge.

The Ninth Circuit has articulated a specific, two-part test for an equitable tolling 

claim based on a petitioner’s mental impairment:

(1) First, a petitioner must show his mental impairment was an “extraordinary 

circumstance” beyond his control by demonstrating the impairment was so 

severe that either

(a) petitioner was unable to rationally or factually personally 

understand the need to timely file, or

(b) petitioner’s mental state rendered him unable personally to prepare 

a habeas petition and effectuate its filing.

(2) Second, the petitioner must show diligence in pursuing the claims to the 

extent he could understand them, but that the mental impairment made it 

impossible to meet the filing deadline under the totality of the circumstances, 

including reasonably available access to assistance.

Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Orthel v. Yates, 795 

F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A petitioner seeking equitable tolling on the grounds of 

mental incompetence must show extraordinary circumstances, such as an inability to 

rationally or factually personally understand the need to timely file, or a mental state 

rendering an inability personally to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing.”).

The R&R notes that the health treatment records Petitioner attached were either 

before the habeas filing period (2001) or after (2016–2017). (Doc. No. 10 at 8.) However, 

the R&R details a 2016 report which summarizes some of Petitioner’s past medical history. 

(Id. at 8.) That report shows that “in 2007 his condition was so improved that Petitioner 

was discharged to the general population and he was not readmitted to the Enhanced 

Outpatient Program until April 2016, long after the limitations period had expired.” (Id.

(quoting Doc. No. 9 at 24).) Thus, the R&R determined that under the first prong, “the 

Case 3:18-cv-00800-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-cv-0800-AJB-LL

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

mental health records establish that while Petitioner suffers from mental illness, his 

condition was not severe enough during the limitations period to prevent him from 

understanding the need to timely file a federal petition or from taking steps to effectuate 

this filing.” (Id. at 9.) 

Petitioner attaches more medical records to his objection. A report dated November 

21, 2006—squarely within the tolling period—indicated that Petitioner stopped medication 

when he arrived at a new facility and denied hearing voices in his head. (Doc. No. 11 at 

25–26.) On another entry dated December 4, 2006, the notetaker described Petitioner as 

having good eye contact, did not appear to be anxious, was not having nightmares, had 

good hygiene, and notes that Petitioner “denied depression.” (Id. at 27.) On January 7, 

2007, Petitioner denied psychotic symptoms and being depressed. (Id. at 28.) He told the 

physician he was “okay” and stated he “did not want medication.” (Id.) The next record, 

from February, states that Petitioner continued to deny hallucinations, being depressed, 

suicide ideation, and notably “continues to be symptom free according to [Petitioner].” 

(Id. at 29.) March shows much of the same. Petitioner admitted to feeling stressed but 

denied mental health issues and declined medication. (Id. at 30.) At one point, Petitioner 

did request to see someone for mental issues, but when seen, Petitioner stated he requested 

to be seen because he had heard his parents were in a plane crash, but then later heard they 

were fine. (Id. at 34.) The physician noted Petitioner seemed depressed, but that Petitioner 

denied suicide ideation. (Id.) In August 2007, Petitioner “continues to deny symptoms” and 

“denied voices, hallucinations, suicide ideation.” (Id. at 33.)

The Court finds that overall these records show Petitioner was likely suffering from 

varying levels of mental illness and depression during the tolling period. However, while 

the Court is sympathetic to Petitioner’s mental health issues, the records do not show that 

Petitioner was so severely impaired that he was unable to rationally or factually personally 

understand the need to timely file, or that his mental state rendered him unable personally 

to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing. Bills, 628 F.3d at 1099–1100. 

Petitioner suggests that due to cultural and emotional differences in his upbringing, it is 

Case 3:18-cv-00800-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-cv-0800-AJB-LL

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

possible he was “faking it” since 2001. (Id. at 5.) However, since 2001, Petitioner appealed 

his conviction to the California appellate and Supreme Court, filed three habeas petitions, 

appealed one of them, and filed the current habeas petition. Thus, looking at the evidence 

as a whole, the Court finds that his mental condition, whether faking it or not, did not 

prevent him from navigating the justice system at any particular period. Nor has Petitioner 

shown that any severe mental impairment kept him from filing his habeas petition during 

the tolling period. 

Thus, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R. 

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALIBILITY

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district 

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 

to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless there is “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this 

standard, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate 

to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 

(2003), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Finding that this order did 

not reach the merits of Petitioner’s petition, and as such did not deny any constitutional 

rights, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, (Doc. No. 10), 

GRANTS Respondent’s dismissal motion, (Doc. No. 7), and DISMISSES Petitioner’s 

writ without leave to amend, (Doc. No. 1). The Court Clerk is instructed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00800-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5