Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02495/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02495-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYKEL HAWKINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2495 MCE JFM P

vs.

C.K. PLILER, WARDEN,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On March 16, 2007, petitioner filed a request for reconsideration of this court’s

March 16, 2007 order granting respondent an extension of time to file a responsive letter brief. 

Petitioner objects to the length of time respondent was granted to file his brief, based on the fact

that over a year elapsed from the time petitioner notified the court of Rompilla v. Beard, ____

U.S. ____, 125 S. Ct. 2456 (2005). In addition, petitioner objects to respondent’s request to

“investigate and brief the possible issue under Evans v. Chavez[, ____ U.S. ____ 126 S. Ct. 846

(2006)(pertaining to tolling of the statute of limitations)].” (March 13, 2007 Request at 2.)

Petitioner contends that respondent has waived any defense based upon the statute of limitations,

but that even if the court were to apply Evans, petitioner’s state petition would be deemed timely

filed under principles of equitable tolling.

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s request for reconsideration will be partially

granted. This court is not inclined, at this late date, to entertain a motion to dismiss on statute of

limitations grounds. Respondent contends that in Evans the Supreme Court found that “an

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 27 Filed 03/21/07 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

2

unexplained six-month delay could not be deemed reasonable under California law for the

purpose of tolling the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2244(d).” (March 13, 2007 Request at 2.) Respondent argues that

petitioner delayed more than four months between his state habeas denial in Sacramento County

Superior Court on December 30, 2002 and the filing of his state habeas petition in the California

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, on April 25, 2003. (Id.) Petitioner contends the delay

was 3.8 months and should be equitably tolled during the period petitioner was on continuous

lockdown, then represented by counsel who failed to take any action for a few weeks.

The Supreme Court in Evans held that the unexplained filing delay of at least six

months by a California inmate is not reasonable, but the Supreme Court did not establish a

bright-line rule regarding delays of less than six months. Id., 126 S.Ct. at 854. Because

petitioner would be entitled to equitable tolling for some or all of the 3.8 to 4 month period at

issue here, this court would not be inclined to entertain a motion to dismiss at this late date;

rather, this court intends to rule on the merits of this action. Respondent’s request for an

extension of time to file a brief concerning application of Evans will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 16, 2007 motion for reconsideration is granted;

2. The March 16, 2007 order is vacated;

3. Respondent is granted until April 3, 2007 in which to file a brief responsive to

this court’s February 27, 2007 order.

DATED: March 20, 2007.

/001;hawk2495.rec

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 27 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 2