Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00357-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN RAKER DICKEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden of )

San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-06-357-AWI-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Granting Petitioner’s Second

Motion for Equitable Tolling and

Vacating Hearing Date

On May 11, 2007, Petitioner Colin Raker Dickey (“Dickey”), filed a second

motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, requesting an additional

tolling of 90 days to October 8, 2007. Dickey filed a declaration of his federal

counsel under seal in support of the motion. Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. (“the

State”) filed an opposition to the motion May 25, 2007. The motion is currently

set for hearing on June 11, 2007.

Dickey’s first request sought equitable tolling for 235 days. The motion 

was granted in part, extending the statute of limitations by 138 days to July 10,

2007. The remaining time requested was denied without prejudice to raising the

request again when the estimates of the time needed to complete the petition

would be less speculative and based on more specific facts.

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 46 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 4
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

OEquitableTolling2Dky 2

Dickey submits four reasons justify additional equitable tolling. First, he

contends 45 days were lost from the time to prepare the petition due to the

rejection of his Phase II budget by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, and the

instruction by this Court to cease work on the case until the budget could be

revised. Second, he asserts the work stoppage had a negative ripple effect on the

preparation of the case. Third, he states the efforts to adopt a viable budget

consumed more of counsel’s time than originally anticipated, which detracted

from preparing the petition. Fourth, he reveals that a critical member of the

defense team, the mitigation specialist who is collecting and organizing the social

history documents, has taken a different job, and her replacement will need time to

become familiar with the case. Counsel argues that despite their diligence, these

circumstances have made it impossible to file a completed petition by July 10, and

additional tolling is necessary to allow a full opportunity to present all the issues

in this case.

In support of the request for additional tolling, the sealed declaration of

counsel gives specifics about what tasks have been accomplished and which tasks

remain to be completed before an adequate habeas petition can be filed. Counsel

states that in light of the resignation of their mitigation investigator and the delays

experienced due to the work stoppage, it is impossible to complete the petition by

July 10, 2007. Counsel’s best case estimates for completion of the anticipated

investigation and expert services is the end of August, allowing one month to

incorporate the experts’ opinions into the petition by early October.

The State objects to Dickey’s motion, repeating arguments which were

presented in opposition to the first motion for equitable tolling: that requesting

tolling before the petition is filed is premature and seeks an advisory opinion; and

that there is no constitutional right to counsel on habeas. These arguments were

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 46 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 4
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

OEquitableTolling2Dky 3

specifically rejected in the prior order on equitable tolling.

The State presents two new objections to Dickey’s motion. First, the State

argues that further investigation will only result in the presentation of unexhausted

claims, which may be procedurally defaulted and so foreclosed from federal

review, and will lead to further delays while those claims are exhausted in state

court. Second, the State contends that budgetary struggles and investigatory

delays are not extraordinary circumstances beyond Dickey’s control and do not

justify tolling.

The State’s argument that investigation will lead to unexhausted claims

which may be procedurally defaulted and cause further delay due to abeyance of

these proceedings during exhaustion of state remedies is not persuasive. 

Procedural default rules are not well established in California. It is not clear that

claims which are presented to the state court even at this late date would be

defaulted and thus barred from federal habeas review, especially in light of

California’s history of denying investigative funding and rarely holding

evidentiary hearings on habeas claims.

The State’s argument that budgetary struggles and investigatory delays are

not beyond Dickey’s control and do not justify tolling also fails to persuade. 

Counsel was instructed not to do any work on the case until a revised budget was

approved. That instruction, and the delay it caused, was definitely beyond

Dickey’s control. Further, there is precedent for granting tolling where counsel is

under court order to suspend work on the case. See Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court

(Kelly II), 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), abrogated on other

grounds by Garceau v. Woodford, 538 U.S. 202 (2003).

There is sufficient justification and precedent to support granting Dickey’s

second motion for equitable tolling. Dickey’s motion for equitable tolling is

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 46 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 4
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

OEquitableTolling2Dky 4

granted for 90 days, extending the statute of limitations to October 8, 2007. The

hearing set for June 11, 2007, is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 46 Filed 06/04/07 Page 4 of 4