Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01719/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01719-10/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

KENNETH R. MOYER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1719 DFL GGH P

vs.

JOE McGRATH, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 10, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Respondent has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations as to the first and second attorneys’

conduct to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Respondents’ objections raise an

Case 2:03-cv-01719-JAM -JFM Document 66 Filed 09/29/06 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

2

issue, however, regarding the conduct of Moyer’s third attorney. The findings and

recommendations generally address the third attorney’s failure to file a timely petition, but do not

identify specific reasons for his nearly two-year period of inactivity. Moreover, the Superior

Court should not be expected to track petitioner’s progress in meeting filing deadlines. Given the

third attorney’s two-year delay, the petition’s timeliness is a close question. After reviewing the

record, the court finds the third attorney’s conduct to be egregious given Moyer’s repeated efforts

to pursue his petition, including sending the attorney thirty-nine letters. The third attorney’s

egregious conduct in failing to file a timely petition tolls the statute of limitations until the filing

of the amended petition. Therefore, the court DECLINES to adopt the portion of the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations discussing the third attorney’s conduct. The court adopts

the remainder of the May 10, 2006 findings and recommendations. Respondent’s motion to

dismiss on grounds that this action is barred by the statute of limitations, contained in the answer,

is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/28/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01719-JAM -JFM Document 66 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2