Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00378-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHAN LEE DONLEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE )

OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00378-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SUPPLEMENT

OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. 12)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). 

On December 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition be dismissed for failure to comply with the one-year statute of

limitations in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 11). The Report and Recommendation gave all parties an opportunity to file

objections within 30 days. (Id.). 

On December 19, 2005, Petitioner filed objections, asserting that he has suffered from

mental illness since 1997. (Doc. 12). Petitioner claimed that during the period of time when

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations ran he “was at the worste [sic] point of [his] illness.” 

(Doc. 12, p. 1). Petitioner also indicated that he was willing to “let the court obtain all my

medical records.” (Id. at p. 2). In that regard, Petitioner included that names and addresses of

several mental health professionals who had records that would, according to Petitioner, support

his claims.

Case 1:05-cv-00378-AWI -TAG Document 13 Filed 01/09/06 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

As the Court explained in the Report and Recommendation of December 8, 2005, the

limitations period is subject to equitable tolling if “extraordinary circumstances beyond a

prisoner’s control” have made it impossible for the petition to be filed on time. Calderon v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir. 1998), citing, Alvarez-Machain v. United States,

107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, Berellez v. Alvarez-Machain, 522 U.S. 814

(1997). "When external forces, rather than a petitioner's lack of diligence, account for the failure

to file a timely claim, equitable tolling of the statute of limitations may be appropriate." Miles v.

Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, equitable tolling applies only where a

petitioner has diligently pursued his claims, but has in some "extraordinary way" been prevented

from asserting those claims.

Here, by raising the issue of his mental illness, Petitioner is presumably contending that

his mental illness was sufficiently debilitating to have prevented him in an “extraordinary way”

from asserting his habeas claims in a timely manner. Apart, however, from his generalized

assertion of mental illness and his listing of various mental health professionals, Petitioner has

provided no corroborating evidence or further details regarding the nature of his condition, when

it arose, and how it might have affected his ability to comply with AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations. Without making such a prima facie showing of entitlement to equitable tolling, the

Court is reluctant to withdraw the Report and Recommendation. Nor, as Petitioner implicitly

suggests, is the Court in a position to solicit medical reports from the listed mental health

professionals regarding these matters. Petitioner has the burden of making at least a colorable

showing regarding his entitlement to equitable tolling before the Court will consider withdrawing

the Report and Recommendation.

The Court will permit Petitioner to supplement his objections by providing medical

records, letters from mental health professionals, and any other documentation he may have to

support his claim of entitlement to equitable tolling.

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00378-AWI -TAG Document 13 Filed 01/09/06 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

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that, within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this Order, Petitioner is required to file a supplement to his objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The supplement should be entitled

“Supplement to Objections to Report and Recommendation,” and should contain evidence that

supports his claim of mental illness and his entitlement to equitable tolling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00378-AWI -TAG Document 13 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 3