Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00934/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00934-7/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

SHAWN WALKER,

Petitioner,

v.

C.M. HARRISON, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00934 OWW SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

[Docs. 15, 20]

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 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. This Findings and Recommendations was served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the

date of service of the order. 

On July 5, 2006, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Although Petitioner did not file an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss,

Petitioner now after the Court issued Findings and Recommendations, raises several reasons for

Case 1:05-cv-00934-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 10/12/06 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

his untimely filing in his objections. In his objections, Petitioner argues that his mental condition

caused him to be untimely, he was on lock-down status during the period of time within which to

file the instant petition, and that further discovery is warranted as he may have filed petition in

the California Supreme Court in June, 2003. (Objections, at 4, 6, 7.) First, Petitioner’s claim

that his mental condition caused him to be untimely is simply unfounded and conclusory. 

Petitioner claims that he has a disease which affects the psychological factors of his thinking.

Petitioner submits some medical reports; however, the reports are mainly dated in 2006, and one

in October, 2005. Petitioner filed the instant action on July 21, 2005, thus, the Court fails to see

how Petitioner’s medical condition subsequent to the date of filing the instant petition, could

have rendered the instant petition untimely. Petitioner’s claim is simply flawed. Moreover,

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a but-for connection between any alleged mental condition

and the untimely filings. See Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 801 (9 Cir. 2001); Espinoza- th

Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9 Cir. 2005). th

With regard to Petitioner’s claim that he dated the petition submitted to the California

Supreme in June, 2003, it is without merit. As stated in the Court’s June 8, 2006, order denying

Petitioner’s motion for discovery, the fact that Petitioner believes he may have filed a petition to

the California Supreme Court in June, 2003, does not save the instant petition from dismissal. 

Even assuming this were true, there still remains an explained delay of 15 months before

Petitioner filed his third petition to the California Supreme Court, of which Petitioner is not

entitled to interval tolling under Evans v. Chavis, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 846, 854 (2006) (the

Supreme Court found an unexplained delay of six months to be presumptively unreasonable

under California law. The Supreme Court stated, “Six months is far longer than the ‘short

period[s] of time,’ 30 to 60 days that most States provide for filing an appeal to the state supreme

court.) (Court Doc. 19, at 2 n. 1.) 

Petitioner’s claim that he was on lock-down status during the relevant time period of

filing the instant petition, is conclusory and vague devoid of factual support. Thus, Petitioner

does not explain the unjustified delay in filing the state court petitions. Petitioner's objections

present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

Case 1:05-cv-00934-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 10/12/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued February 28, 2006, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

3. The instant petition is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE, as untimely; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. This terminates this

action in its entirety.

Dated: October 6, 2006 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00934-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 10/12/06 Page 3 of 3