Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00430/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00430-1/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 - 07cv0430

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WILLIAMSON MORRIS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv0430

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No.

15);

(2) REJECTING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 16);

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR

STAY AND ABEYANCE AS MOOT

(Doc No. 9); and

(4) DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 1). 

vs.

ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

On March 7, 2007, petitioner Larry Williamson Morris (“petitioner”) filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus challenging his October, 2003 convictions for possession of cocaine for sale,

possession of marijuana, and possession of methamphetamine. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner claims

multiple violations of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause in his trial in Superior Court

in San Diego. 

On May 2, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance. (Doc. No. 9.) In

respondent’s opposition, filed June 4, 2007, he argued the entire petition is untimely under the statute

of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). (Doc. No. 10.) On

Case 3:07-cv-00430-IEG-CAB Document 17 Filed 01/23/08 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

1

Petitioner also includes as an exhibit a discrepancy document dated January 24, 2007 from

the Clerk of the Court including a 2254 packet for petitioner. This may have been the Clerk’s

response to the extension request which may have been filed by petitioner.

- 2 - 07cv0430

September 28, 2007, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued an order allowing petitioner to

file a reply and specifically to address the untimeliness issue. (Doc. No. 11.) Petitioner filed a reply

on October 30, 2007. (Doc. No. 14.) On November 6, 2007, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo

issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending the Court dismiss the petition for

failure to comply with AEDPA’s one year statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 15.) On December 3,

2007, petitioner filed objections to the Report. (Doc. No. 16.) 

Reviewing the Report de novo, the Court concludes petitioner did not file his petition within

AEDPA’s one year statute of limitations. As properly calculated by the magistrate judge, the statute

of limitations for petitioner began running on July 13, 2005, ninety days after the California Supreme

Court denied review. Report at 3-4; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Tillema v. Long, 253 F.3d 494, 498 (9th

Cir. 2001). It thus expired on July 13, 2006. The instant petition was filed March 7, 2007, well

outside of the statutory period of limitations. 

As the magistrate judge properly concluded, petitioner has not indicated any entitlement to

statutory or equitable tolling. Petitioner objects that his untimely presentation of the claims is due to

lack of knowledge of applicable filing deadlines, lack of representation, unfamiliarity with the legal

process, and ignorance of legal rights. (Objections at 2.) Petitioner attached an exhibit to his

objections entitled “request for extension of time” with an illegible filing stamp which resembles the

filing stamp for the Southern District. (Objections, Ex. B.) This document is dated June 29, 2006 and

requests a 90-day extension for filing petitioner’s “federal habeas corpus” due to delays in

photocopying attempted on April 13, 2005.1

 Even assuming by preparing this document petitioner

was diligently pursuing his rights, his requested 90-day extension would have expired in September

of 2006, nearly six months before petitioner eventually filed his untimely petition. Moreover, taking

the document at face value, it indicates petitioner was aware of his filing deadline of July 13, 2006.

In order to establish his right to equitable tolling, petitioner must not only establish his diligent

pursuit of his rights but also that “extraordinary circumstances beyond [his] control . . . made it

impossible to file a petition on time.” Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 799-800 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal

Case 3:07-cv-00430-IEG-CAB Document 17 Filed 01/23/08 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 - 07cv0430

numbering omitted). As the Report correctly concluded, petitioner has not established any such

“extraordinary circumstances.” 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court (1) adopts the magistrate judge’s Report; (2) rejects petitioner’s

objections; (3) denies petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance as moot; and (4) dismisses the

petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice as untimely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00430-IEG-CAB Document 17 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 3