Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01641-9/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

TONIE ELMORE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1641 GEB GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, represented by appointed counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. In an Order, filed on August 7, 2007, this court set an evidentiary hearing for October 29,

2007, on the question of whether petitioner could meet his burden to demonstrate that his

entitlement to equitable tolling for the period of time from August, 2003, until October, 2004,

based on a claim of mental illness. On October 9, 2007, petitioner’s counsel filed a stipulated

motion, signed by counsel for both parties, to cancel the evidentiary hearing, asking the court to

render its ruling based on the record before it, stating:

After a complete and thorough review, including additional

consultation with the relevant parties, the obtaining and review of

additional records, and consultation with other attorneys, both

parties stipulate that an evidentiary hearing would not provide any

meaningful additional information on the underlying issues in this

case. In this regard, petitioner specifically withdraws his previous

request for an evidentiary hearing.

Stipulated Motion, filed on October 9, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01641-GEB-GGH Document 39 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Pursuant to the stipulated request, the undersigned granted the motion, vacating

the scheduled October 29, 2007, evidentiary hearing by Order, filed on October 16, 2007. The

court has previously wholly set forth its findings in detail as to respondent’s motion to dismiss in

the Order, setting the evidentiary hearing, filed on August 7, 2007, wherein the record before it

was fully considered. In considering respondent’s October 6, 2006, motion to dismiss as barred

by the AEDPA statute of limitations, it was evident that the only argument petitioner had for

timeliness rested solely on his claims of being entitled to equitable tolling. See, Order, filed on

August 7, 2007, p. 4. The undersigned found that petitioner had adequately met his burden to

qualify for equitable tolling for the first of two time periods, as set forth fully in the Order. As to

the subject of the then scheduled evidentiary hearing, the court stated: 

While the undersigned does not find petitioner should be granted

equitable tolling on the ground he has raised for a second period of

tolling based on the evidence submitted, the court has little choice,

in light of Laws [v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9 Cir. 2003] but to th

grant, as petitioner alternatively suggests, an evidentiary hearing on

the question of whether petitioner should have equitable tolling for

the period from August 25, 2003, until October 6, 2004, the filing

date of his state court habeas petition. Petitioner has not yet met

his burden to demonstrate that he was, in fact, subjected to the

merciless beating he suggests occurred on August 25, 2003,

debilitating physically and exacerbating a mental condition. As

respondent noted at oral argument, no specific diagnosis of his

mental condition has been proffered. Nor does petitioner

demonstrate in the face of his intervening filings, noted above, that

he has suffered mental illness to the degree that he could not have

earlier filed the instant petition. He has not shown that the

psychotropic medications he was administered extended for the full

period of time for which he claims equitable tolling, and whether

they were administered for the whole period, or most of the period,

why they should not be deemed effective enough to have permitted

him to file the instant petition sooner.

Order, filed on August 7, 2007, p. 13.

The court had already completely considered the record before it in finding that an

evidentiary hearing was necessary for petitioner to attempt to meet his burden on his claim for

equitable tolling for a second period of time, a period for which such tolling would be required

for the petition to be deemed timely filed. As petitioner has since stipulated to vacating the

Case 2:05-cv-01641-GEB-GGH Document 39 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

hearing, the court now finds that petitioner cannot meet his burden and must now recommend

granting respondent’s motion to dismiss, incorporating herein this court’s prior Order, filed on

August 7, 2007.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s 

October 6, 2006, motion to dismiss be granted and this habeas petition be dismissed as untimely.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 12/11/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

elmo1641.fr

Case 2:05-cv-01641-GEB-GGH Document 39 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3