Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01797/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01797-2/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

10cv1797 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH LEON BURTON,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SANDERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10-1797-WQH(WVG)

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(DOC. NOS. 6, 20)

 I

 INTRODUCTION

On June 17, 2011, the Court filed a Report and Recommendation

Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Denying Petitioner’s Motion

to Strike and Denying Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary

Hearing. On September 28, 2011, the District Judge assigned to this

case filed an Order (“Order”) regarding the Report and Recommendation. The Order stated, inter alia:

1. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Petitioner’s

conviction became final and the statute of limitations on Petitioner’s Petition began to run on January 13, 2007. (Order at 3).

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 1 of 12
 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

10cv1797 2

2. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the statute of

limitations was not statutorily tolled from January 13, 2007 through

September 30, 2007 (8 months 17 days)(Order at 3).

3. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the statute of

limitations was not statutorily tolled from October 8, 2008 through

May 15, 2009 (7 months 5 days)(Order at 3).

4. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the statute of

limitations was not statutorily tolled from June 9, 2010 through

August 27, 2010 (2 months 18 days)(Order at 3-4).

5. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the total

amount of time in which the statute of limitations was not statutorily tolled equals one year, six months and ten days, which exceeds

the one year statute of limitations mandated by AEDPA. (Order at 4).

6. The dates for (Petitioner’s) admission to Reception Center

Central on January 18, 2006 and transfer on February 5, 2006 listed

in the movement history report (provided by Respondent) are

inconsistent with Petitioner’s sentencing date of November 14, 2006.

The movement history report is incomplete because the left side

margin of the movement history is deleted... The date of Petitioner’s movements are aligned on the left side margin and there

appears to be a missing digit. (Order at 7).

7. The movement history report itself only contains the name

of the facility in which Petitioner was housed. It does not indicate

whether Petitioner had access to the law library at any particular

facility, or whether Petitioner was provided information, or access

to information regarding the procedural requirements of AEDPA.

(Order at 7-8).

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 2 of 12
 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

10cv1797 3

8. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge to further

develop the factual record on the issue of whether Petitioner

suffered an impediment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) and

whether Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling (of the statute

of limitations) for any of the periods from January 13, 2007 to July

27, 2007. (Order at 8).

On October 6, 2011, the Court filed an Order For Further

Briefing which ordered Respondent to:

1. ... file an accurate and complete movement

history report regarding Petitioner;

2. ... file further briefing and declarations of

prison personnel that indicate:

(a) the names of the facilities at which

Petitioner was housed;

(b) the dates when Petitioner was housed at

each of the facilities at which he was housed;

(c) whether Petitioner has or had access to

a law library at each facility at which he was housed;

or whether Petitioner was provided information or

access to information regarding the procedural

requirements of AEDPA at each facility at which he was

housed. (Order For Further Briefing at 1-2).

On November 16, 2011, Respondent filed the supplemental

briefing and lodged with the Court the declarations of prison

personnel that contained the information ordered by the Court. On

December 14, 2011, Petitioner filed an Opposition To Respondent’s

Further Briefing.

The Court, having reviewed the Order, Respondent’s supplemental briefing, the documents lodged therewith, and Petitioner’s

Opposition To Respondent’s Further Briefing, and GOOD CAUSE

APPEARING, HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be

GRANTED and Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing be DENIED.

 II

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 3 of 12
 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/

Petitioner claims that he was housed at the Chino Reception Center for 240

days. The Court assumes that Petitioner refers to the California Institute for Men

in Chino, California. However, Petitioner is incorrect. Petitioner’s movement

history indicated that he was housed at the Reception Center Central from November

18, 2006 to December 4, 2006. From December 5, 2006 to January 26, 2007,

Petitioner was housed at the California Institute For Men. The Order noted that

any period of time prior to January 13, 2007 does not affect the statute of

limitations in this case. (Order at 5, fn. 1). Therefore, Petitioner’s housing at

the California Institute For Men from December 5, 2006 to January 12, 2007 does

not affect the statute of limitations in this case.

10cv1797 4

 FURTHER FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT

A. Petitioner’s Movement History

As previously noted in the Order and this Supplemental Report

and Recommendation, Petitioner was sentenced on November 14, 2006.

On November 18, 2006, Petitioner was admitted to Reception

Center Central. On November 20 and 27, 2006, Petitioner was moved to

different units at the Reception Center Central.

On December 5, 2006, Petitioner was transferred to the

California Institute For Men - East.1/

On July 27, 2007, Petitioner was transferred to the Sierra

Conservation Center.

On May 21, 2008, Petitioner was temporarily released to

Doctors Hospital in Manteca, California. He was returned to the

Sierra Conservation Center on the same day.

On August 28, 2008, Petitioner was temporarily released to

Mark Twain Hospital in San Andreas, California. He was returned to

the Sierra Conservation Center on the same day.

On September 24, 2008, Petitioner was temporarily transferred

to the North Kern Prison Reception Center en route to Reception

Center Central.

On September 25, 2008, Petitioner was transferred from the

North Kern Prison Reception Center to Reception Center Central.

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 4 of 12
 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

10cv1797 5

On October 1, 2008, Petitioner was temporarily released to

attend a court hearing.

On October 15, 2008, Petitioner was transferred to the

Reception Center Central.

On October 30, 2008, Petitioner was transferred from

Reception Center Central to the Sierra Conservation Center Administrative Segregation Overflow.

On November 19, 2009, Petitioner was temporarily released to

Mark Twain Hospital. He was returned to the Sierra Conservation

Center on the same day and was placed in the Main Unit.

On November 20, 2009, Petitioner was transferred to the

Sierra Conservation Center Administrative Segregation Overflow.

On August 4, 2010, Petitioner was transferred from the Sierra

Conservation Center to the California Correctional Institute

Reception Center. 

On August 5, 2010, Petitioner was transferred from the

California Correctional Institute Reception Center to the California

Rehabilitation Center, where he is currently housed. 

(Respondent’s Lodgment No. 14).

B. Petitioner’s Access To the Law Library

As previously noted in Section I of this Supplemental Report

and Recommendation, the District Judge assigned to this case found

that the statute of limitations on Petitioner’s Petition was not

tolled from January 13, 2007 to September 30, 2007; from October 8,

2008 to May 15, 2009; and from June 9, 2010 to August 27, 2010, for

a total of one year, six months and ten days.

1. Days When Petitioner Did Not Have Access To a Law

Library

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 5 of 12
 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/

As previously noted in this Supplemental Report and Recommendation, the

statute of limitations on Petitioner’s Petition was not tolled from October 8,

2008 to May 15, 2009. The statute of limitations was tolled from October 1, 2008

to October 7, 2008. The days between October 1, 2008 and October 7, 2008 are not

counted in the Court’s analysis because the statute of limitations was tolled

during these dates.

10cv1797 6

On the following days during the periods in which the statute

of limitations was not tolled, the Court gives Petitioner the

benefit of the doubt that he may not have had access to a law

library:

(a) September 27, 2007. Petitioner was transferred from

the California Institute For Men - East to the Sierra Conservation

Center. (1 day).

(b) October 8, 20082/ to October 15, 2008. Petitioner was

released to attend a court hearing. (8 days).

(c) On October 15, 2008, Petitioner was transferred to

the Reception Center Central.

(d) October 15, 2008 to October 30, 2008. Petitioner was

housed at the Reception Center Central. (16 days).

(e) October 30, 2008. Petitioner was transferred to the

Sierra Conservation Center. (1 day).

(f) August 4, 2010. Petitioner was transferred to the

California Correctional Institution Reception Center. (1 day).

(g) August 5, 2010, Petitioner was transferred to the

California Rehabilitation Center. (1 day).

The total number of days that Petitioner may not have had

access to a law library during the time periods when the statute of

limitations was not tolled is 28 days.

2. Time When Petitioner Had Access To A Law Library

From January 13, 2007 to July 26, 2007, Petitioner was housed

at the California Institute For Men - East. Respondent lodged with

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 6 of 12
 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/

Petitioner claims that there are no records on file at the California

Institute for Men. However, Mr. Gill’s Declaration states that “there are no

records indicating that inmate Burton requested law library access...”

(Respondent‘s Lodgment No. 15 at 1)

Petitioner also claims that Mr. Gill’s Declaration contains no “first-hand

information, merely a broad recitation of their policy.” (Opposition to

Respondent’s Further Briefing Regarding Equitable Tolling, at 4). However, while

Mr. Gill’s declaration may contain information provided to him by Christopher

Maugham, Senior Library Technician at the California Institute for Men, and Iesha

Parrish, Library Technician at the California Institute for Men, it is entirely

appropriate for Mr. Gill to rely upon the information provided to him by library

personnel in the performance of the their duties. This information sheds light on

Petitioner’s access and use of the law library while he was housed at the

California Institute for Men.

4/

Petitioner states that prior to his arrival at the Sierra Conservation

Center, he did not even know what the MC-275 (form) Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus was. (Declaration of Petitioner in Support of Opposition to Motion to

Dismiss at 3).

10cv1797 7

the Court the Declaration of Michael Gill, Litigation Coordinator at

the California Institute For Men. Mr. Gill’s Declaration states

inter alia:

(a) During the time that Petitioner was housed at the

California Institute For Men, he had access to the law library.

(b) During the time that Petitioner was housed at the

California Institute For Men, all inmates had access to AEDPA in the

law library, upon the inmate’s request.

(c) During the time that Petitioner was housed at the

California Institute For Men, there are no records that indicate

that Petitioner requested access to the law library. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 15).3/

From July 27, 2007 to August 4, 2010, Petitioner was housed

at the Sierra Conservation Center.4/ Respondent lodged with the Court

the Declaration of Mitch Lindenbaum, Senior Librarian at the Sierra

Conservation Center. Mr. Lindenbuam’s Declaration states inter alia:

(a) On June 9, 2009, Petitioner received services from

the law library. He requested and received 960 pages of copies for

his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner was not present

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 7 of 12
 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

5/

Petitioner admits that while he was housed at the Sierra Conservation

Center, he visited the law library and met inmate Jesse Wagner, who offered to

assist him in filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Declaration of

Petitioner in Support of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 2).

10cv1797 8

in the law library on that day. Rather, he received the copies via

the Library Paging System, a system to assist inmates who can not

easily access the law library for a variety of reasons.

(b) During the period in which Petitioner was housed at

the Sierra Conservation Center, AEDPA was available for Petitioner

to review, at his request. (Respondent’s Lodgments Nos. 17, 18).5/

From August 5, 2010 to August 27, 2010, Petitioner was housed

at the California Rehabilitation Center. Respondent lodged with the

Court the Declaration of William Swafford, Senior Law Librarian of

the California Rehabilitation Center. Mr. Swafford’s Declaration

states inter alia:

(a) During the time that Petitioner has been housed at

the California Rehabilitation Center, the law library was available

to Petitioner.

(b) The law library contains rules of court, including

the requirements of AEDPA.

(c) It is exceedingly rare that an inmate will not have

library access within 24 hours of a request for use of the library.

(Respondent’s Lodgment No. 19).

Mr. Swafford also stated in a memorandum dated October 15,

2011:

(a) Petitioner has never requested a law library

appointment from August 2010 to the present.

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 8 of 12
 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

10cv1797 9

(b) Petitioner visited the law library on 11 occasions

in 2011: April 13, June 3, 14, 23, July 6 (two different times), 9

14, 26, 29 and August 31. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 20).

 III

PETITIONER’S PETITION IS ENTITLED TO 28 DAYS OF EQUITABLE TOLLING OF

 THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

As previously noted in Section II.B.1. of this Supplemental

Report and Recommendation, the total number of days that Petitioner

may not have had access to a law library during the time periods

when the statute of limitations was not tolled is 28 days. Subtraction of 28 days from the total amount of days when the statute of

limitations was not tolled (1 year, six months ten days), does not

result in making Petitioner’s Petition timely. Therefore, the Court

concludes that, given the days in which Petitioner may not have been

able to access a law library, his Petition is untimely.

Moreover, that prior to Petitioner’s arrival at the Sierra

Conservation Center, he did not know what the MC-275 (form) Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus was, does not entitle his Petition to

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. A pro se petitioner’s ignorance of the law is not an extraordinary circumstance

that warrants equitable tolling of AEDPA’s statute of limitations.

Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006), WaldronRamsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1013, fn. 4 (9th Cir. 2009).

 IV

 THERE WAS NO IMPEDIMENT TO PETITIONER’S

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 9 of 12
 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

10cv1797 10

 FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY PETITION

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) allows AEDPA’s statute of limitations to begin to run on the date on which an impediment created by

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United

States is removed, if a petition was prevented from being filed due

to the State action.

In Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2000), the

court remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary

hearing related to the equitable tolling arguments made by the

petitioner in that case. The first argument was that the law library

at the prison where the petitioner was housed did not have legal

materials that described AEDPA. The second argument was that the

petitioner did not have knowledge of AEDPA’s statute of limitations.

These factual allegations, taken together, were the basis of the

court’s reason to remand the case to the district court. Roy v.

Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 974 (9th Cir. 2006). In a concurring opinion

in Whalem/Hunt, Ninth Circuit Judge Tashima noted that “an impediment [under § 2244(d)(1)(B)] or an ‘extraordinary circumstance’

(under our equitable tolling cases)” may exist where a petitioner is

unable to “learn and be guided by such critically important

procedural rules as the governing limitations period.” Whalem/Hunt,

233 F.3d at 1149.

Here, despite Petitioner’s protests to the contrary, and

except for the 28 days noted in Section II.B.1. of this Supplemental

Report and Recommendation, during the time periods when the statute

of limitations was not tolled, Petitioner had access to a law

library and access to AEDPA. (Respondent’s Lodgments Nos. 14, 15,

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 10 of 12
 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

10cv1797 11

17, 18, 19, 20). Therefore, Petitioner was able to learn and be

guided by AEDPA and its statute of limitations.

Further, the Court’s rejection of sufficient equitable

tolling of the statute of limitations based on Petitioner’s alleged

lack of library access “constitutes an implicit rejection of his

impediment argument.” Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir.

2005), modified on other grounds 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006), cert.

denied 549 U.S. 1134 (2007); Roy, 465 F.3d at 972, fn. 3; Bryant v.

Arizona Atty. Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007).

Moreover, Petitioner’s failure to discover and learn about

his legal rights prior to his arrival at the Sierra Conservation

Center is not a state action that prevented him from filing a timely

Petition. Instead, Petitioner has demonstrated lack of diligence in

discovering and learning about his legal rights. Crenshaw v. Tilton,

2008 WL 878887 at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2008).

As a result, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Petition is

untimely, it is entitled to some equitable tolling of the statute of

limitations, but not enough to make his Petition timely, and that he

did not suffer from an impediment to timely filing his Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(B).

Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss be GRANTED and Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary

Hearing be DENIED.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 11 of 12
 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

10cv1797 12

This Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

Section 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than January 27, 2012, any party

to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve

a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

February 10, 2012. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise

those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 27, 2011

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01797-WQH-WVG Document 32 Filed 12/27/11 Page 12 of 12