Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02394/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02394-0/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 

FILED 

MAY 0 8 2015 

RICHARD W. WIEKING 

CLERK U.S. OISIRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 

10 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 TYRONE JACKSON, 

12 Petitioner, 

13 vs. 

14 HEIDI M. LACKNER, Warden, 

15 Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) __________________________ ) 

16 

No. C 14-2394 LHK (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding prose, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising a claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 

19 Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. Petitioner has filed an 

20 opposition, and respondent has filed a reply. 

21 The parties agree that petitioner's petition is untimely absent equitable tolling. As 

22 grounds for equitable tolling, petitioner claims that petitioner received a letter from counsel on 

23 December 18, 2012, informing petitioner that the California Supreme Court denied a petition for 

24 review. The letter also notified petitioner that counsel would be sending a copy of the trial 

25 transcripts to petitioner under separate cover. However, petitioner did not receive a copy of the 

26 trial transcripts from counsel until December 3, 2013. Thus, argues petitioner, he is entitled to 

27 equitable tolling through December 3, 2013, which would make his petitioner timely. 

28 The Supreme Court has determined that Section 2244( d) is subject to equitable tolling in 

Order Directing Parties to File Supplemental Briefing 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.l4\Jackson394suppbrief. wpd 

Case 5:14-cv-02394-LHK Document 13 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 3
appropriate cases. Hollandv. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 560 (2010). "[A] petitioner is entitled to 

2 equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that 

3 some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing." /d. at 648 

4 (internal quotation marks omitted). The petitioner bears the burden of showing that equitable 

5 tolling should apply. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006). Whether 

6 equitable tolling is in order turns on an examination of detailed facts. See Loft v. Mueller, 304 

7 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2002). 

8 The court finds that further development of the facts is necessary before the court can 

9 properly address the issue of equitable tolling. See, e.g., United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 

10 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding case to district court for further exploration of whether 

11 counsel's failure to send petitioner the full set of transcripts caused petitioner's late filing); 

12 Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane) (remanding case to district 

13 court for development of facts concerning whether AEDPA materials were unavailable in the 

14 prison law library). 

15 Accordingly, petitioner is directed to file within thirty days ofthe filing date ofthis 

16 order a supplemental opposition specifically explaining: (1) what specific documents, if any, he 

17 had relating to his criminal trial (including any appellate pleadings or opinions) and when he 

18 received them; (2) what specific portion(s) ofhis trial transcripts he needed before he could file 

19 his federal habeas petition and the date he received them; and (3) how petitioner diligently tried 

20 to obtain those portions of the transcript prior to December 3, 2013. Petitioner should include 

21 any evidentiary support he has to support his supplemental opposition. 

22 In response, within fourteen days ofthe filing of petitioner's supplemental opposition, 

23 respondent is directed to file a supplemental reply. In respondent's supplemental reply, he shall 

24 include a complete copy of petitioner's opening brief on appeal as well as a complete copy of 

25 petitioner's petition for review to the California Supreme Court. 1 

26 

27 

28 

1 Although respondent's reply included exhibits consisting of copies of docket sheets, a 

petition for review to the California Supreme Court, and a denial of a petition for review, these 

exhibits refer to a criminal case with a defendant named "Racardo Shavez Jackson," who was 

Order Directing Parties to File Supplemental Briefing 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.l4Vackson394suppbrief. wpd 2 

Case 5:14-cv-02394-LHK Document 13 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 3
1 Upon receipt of respondent's supplemental reply, the motion to dismiss will be deemed 

2 submitted and ready for the court's consideration. 

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

4 DATED: 5/g ;-20 l 5" 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

United States District Judge 

28 convicted in Solano County Superior Court. Thus, they are not relevant to petitioner. 

Order Directing Parties to File Supplemental Briefing 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.l4\Jackson394suppbrief. wpd 3 

Case 5:14-cv-02394-LHK Document 13 Filed 05/08/15 Page 3 of 3