Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

06dp00942.OResptOppTimely.SanNic.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY JESSE SAN NICOLAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, as Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-00942-LJO

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DETERMINING TIMELINESS OF

RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO

EQUITABLE TOLLING MOTION 

Hearing Date: March 12, 2007

Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom Eight

The matter is before the Court on the request of Respondent Robert L. Ayers, as Warden of San

Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) to postpone the hearing date on the pending motion for equitable

tolling filed by Petitioner Rodney Jesse San Nicolas (“San Nicolas”) or, alternatively, to deem his

opposition brief filed on February 28, 2007 as timely. The Court grants the request as to the timeliness

of the Warden’s opposition brief and will maintain the hearing date of March 12, 2007 to consider the

equitable tolling motion.

Due to a calendaring error, San Nicolas filed his motion for equitable tolling with only 25 days

notice rather than the 31 days required pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(b). San Nicolas filed and

electronically served his motion on February 15, 2007 and set the hearing date for Monday, March 12,

2007. Under subdivision (c) of Rule 78-230, the party opposing a motion is to file an opposition no later

than 14 days before the hearing. In this case, 14 days before the hearing was February 26, 2007. Based

on these dates, from the filing of the motion to the due date on February 26, 2007, the Warden had only

11 days to complete his opposition. Had the hearing on the motion been properly noticed pursuant to

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 29 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 2
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

06dp00942.OResptOppTimely.SanNic.wpd 2

subdivision (b) of Rule 78-230, the Warden would have 17 days to prepare his opposition brief. In fact,

the Warden electronically filed his opposition brief on February 28, 2007. In light of the defective

notice, the Court considers the Warden’s opposition brief timely filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2007 

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 29 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 2