Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00379/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00379-1/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

MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0379 DFL KJM P

vs.

KEN CLARK, 

Respondent. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner has filed an application for leave to file a habeas petition in excess of 25

pages. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted.

Finally, petitioner has asked that the court stay this action while he exhausts state

court remedies with respect to his third claim. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct.

1528, 1535 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized the district court’s authority to stay a mixed

Case 2:07-cv-00379-LRS Document 12 Filed 05/01/07 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 1

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year

period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations

is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

2

petition for writ of habeas corpus if the court finds good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust

earlier and merit to the claims petitioner is seeking to exhaust. 

The court finds that petitioner has not established good cause for his failure to

exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner asserts he only recently learned of the legal basis of his

claim. But lack of knowledge with respect to a particular rule or law rarely, if ever, provides

justification for failure to comply with that rule or law. See Pincay v. Andrews, 351 F.3d 947,

951 (9th Cir. 2003) (“No axiom is more familiar than ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse.’”). In

the habeas context, it has been specifically held that ignorance of the law cannot provide a basis

for excusing procedural default, e.g., Washington v. James, 996 F.2d 1442, 1447 (2d Cir. 1993),

and cannot provide a basis for tolling the statute of limitations, e.g., Raspberry v. Garcia, 448

F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). There does not appear to be any reason to depart from the

general principle that ignorance of the law cannot excuse compliance with that law in this case. 

Therefore, the court will recommend that petitioner’s motion for a stay be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s request for leave to file a habeas application in excess of 25 pages

is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 26, 2007 request for a stay be denied;

2. Petitioner be ordered to inform the court within thirty days of any order

adopting the foregoing findings and recommendations whether he wishes to proceed on his

exhausted claims, or have the matter dismissed without prejudice.

1

Case 2:07-cv-00379-LRS Document 12 Filed 05/01/07 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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 30, 2007.

 

1

brum0379.mfs

Case 2:07-cv-00379-LRS Document 12 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 3