Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01864/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01864-6/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 ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

2:05-CV-1864-RRB-GGH P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:05-CV-1864-RRB-GGH P

ORDER

Petitioner Derrick Lakey (“Petitioner”) is a state

prisoner proceeding through counsel with an 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 October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations (Docket 24) 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 ten days. Petitioner has filed Objections to the

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations at Docket 25.

DERRICK LAKEY,

Petitioner,

vs.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case 2:05-cv-01864-JAM-GGH Document 26 Filed 12/13/06 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 ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

2:05-CV-1864-RRB-GGH P

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are

based in law, i.e., legal disputes, and in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 72-304, the

Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings

filed in this matter. 

The issue presented is a complex one. The Court

concludes, however, that under California law, petitioner was

entitled to AEDPA tolling for the 267 days his California state

petition was pending. His federal petition was therefore timely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket 18) the petition

as time-barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations, filed on

April 13, 2006, is DENIED.

ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2006.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01864-JAM-GGH Document 26 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2