Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05840/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05840-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

NICOMEDES D. VIRAY, ) 1:03-cv-05840-REC-TAG HC

)

)

Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

) PROVIDE BRIEFING

v. )

) ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

)

SCOTT P. DRAWERS, et al. )

 )

)

Respondents. )

 )

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

On May 29, 2003, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of California. (Doc. 1). On June 19, 2003, the matter

was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno

Division. (Id.). 

On July 21, 2003, this Court issued an order requiring Respondent to submit an answer

addressing the merits of the petition within ninety days of the date of service of the order. The

Court’s order additionally granted Respondent the option of filing a motion to dismiss, in lieu of an

answer, within sixty days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 3). On September 9, 2003,

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was filed after the

Case 1:03-cv-05840-LJO -JMD Document 37 Filed 05/26/05 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

expiration of the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 6). Petitioner filed

an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 2, 2003. (Doc. 13). 

On March 15, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation

recommending that the petition be dismissed because Petitioner failed to comply with the one-year

statute of limitations. (Doc. 14). On June 18, 2004, the United States District Judge adopted the

report and recommendation. (Doc. 17). On July 12, 2004, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal.

(Doc. 19). 

On April 28, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s order

dismissing the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Doc. 34). In its

memorandum ruling, the Ninth Circuit noted that Petitioner had contended that he was entitled to

equitable tolling of the limitations period “because of his former counsel’s failure to name the correct

parties in a prior habeas petition, failure to file in the correct district, failure to refile when the

petition was dismissed, and failure to communicate or respond to Viray and his family’s inquiries.” 

(Id. at p. 2). Because Petitioner’s allegations regarding when counsel misfiled the prior petition and

when counsel returned the file were “uncorroborated by independent evidence in the record,” the

Ninth Circuit remanded the case for “further development of the record with regard to these factual

issues and the issue of causation,” citing United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.

2004). (Doc. 34, p. 2). 

DISCUSSION

The AEDPA imposes a one-year period of limitations on petitioners seeking to file a federal

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute of limitations may be tolled

pursuant to statute, see § 2244(d)(2), or equitably, see Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir.

2003). Because the Ninth Circuit remanded this action solely to determine whether Petitioner is

entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period, statutory tolling is not at issue.

Equitable tolling is available when “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control

have made it impossible to file a petition on time” and “the extraordinary circumstances were the

cause of his untimeliness.” Spitsyn, 345 F.3d at 799. Petitioner had previously raised several bases

for equitable tolling; however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has expressly remanded the case

Case 1:03-cv-05840-LJO -JMD Document 37 Filed 05/26/05 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

for further factual development only on the following issues: (1) when Petitioner’s counsel misfiled

the prior habeas petition; (2) when that counsel returned the file to Petitioner; and (3) causation, i.e.,

whether, if true, those facts caused Petitioner to file the instant petition beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. (Doc. 34, p. 2). 

Respondent will be directed to brief these grounds for equitable tolling, including the lodging

of any documents or evidence that Respondent asserts are relevant to the factual development of the

equitable tolling issue. Petitioner will be given an opportunity to reply. If, upon conclusion of the

briefing process, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing on the issue of equitable tolling is

necessary, the Court will so order. Respondent is advised that in the event he wishes to concede the

issue of timeliness and choose instead to answer the merits of Petitioner’s claims, he may do so by

requesting leave of Court within the time herein allotted. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Respondent is DIRECTED to brief the issue of whether Petitioner is entitled to

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations based on the grounds specifically discussed in this order. 

Respondent’s brief is due within forty-five (45) days of the date of service of this order. Petitioner

may file an opposition brief if he so chooses; said opposition brief is due within thirty (30) days of

the date Respondent files his brief. Respondent may file a reply brief within fifteen (15) days of the 

date Petitioner files his opposition brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05840-LJO -JMD Document 37 Filed 05/26/05 Page 3 of 3