Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01004-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALPHONSO HAYDEN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-1004 WBS DB P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending is respondent’s motion to dismiss 

the petition as untimely. Petitioner, filed his opposition before counsel was appointed, argues that 

he is entitled to equitable tolling due to mental illness. (ECF No. 28.) Petitioner’s appointed 

counsel now requests leave to amend petitioner’s pro se opposition “with additional legal 

arguments based on the existing record.”

Before proceeding to petitioner’s motion, it is necessary to review the reason underlying 

counsel’s appointment. On November 23, 2016, the Court appointed the Federal Defender “for 

the purpose of opposing the pending motion to dismiss.” (ECF No. 47.) The Court reasoned that 

appointed was warranted not because petitioner’s opposition was deficient but because of the 

potential need for an evidentiary hearing: 

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 85 Filed 03/11/20 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

27

28

2

Specifically, the court’s review of the briefing on the motion to 

dismiss and the extensive mental health records filed with the court 

raise the possibility that an evidentiary hearing may be required 

pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 

1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (“the district court must ... find the 

petitioner has made a non-frivolous showing that he had a severe 

mental impairment during the filing period that would entitle him to 

an evidentiary hearing.”)

The mental health records filed with the court (ECF No. 32) 

indicate petitioner was diagnosed with schizophrenia and endured 

episodes of hallucinations and delusions during the filing period. 

While the court does not yet draw any conclusions based upon its 

review of the record, the possibility of the need for an 

evidentiary hearing merits the appointment of counsel for 

petitioner.

(ECF No. 47 at 1-2 [emphasis added].)

In line with that order, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on November 18, 2019, at 

which Assistant Federal Defender Hannah Larabee appeared on behalf of petitioner and presented 

documentary evidence and the testimony of a medical expert. Following the hearing, the 

undersigned then directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing concerning the relevance of 

any new evidence and/or expert testimony offered by the parties at the evidentiary hearing. The 

parties have since filed their post-evidentiary hearing briefs. (ECF Nos. 83-84.)

Turning now to petitioner’s motion, it is true that petitioner’s opposition was filed before 

counsel was appointed. In fact, petitioner, when appearing pro se, also filed a supplemental brief 

(ECF No. 42) that included further argument and extensive citation to the record in support of 

petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to equitable tolling. Both filings were drafted with the 

assistance of another inmate, M.T. Shannon, who has demonstrated an ability to prepare wellresearched briefs supported by evidence. While there may be little doubt that appointed counsel 

may draft a more sophisticated opposition, petitioner’s request will be denied because the 

appointment order specifically limited counsel’s assistance to the context of an evidentiary 

hearing. In addition, the undersigned is not convinced that the briefs that have already been filed 

are so insufficient to warrant amendment. 

////

////

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 85 Filed 03/11/20 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request to file an amended 

opposition is DENIED.

Dated: March 10, 2020

/DLB7;

DB/Inbox/Priority/hayd1004.mta

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 85 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 3