Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01048/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01048-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENO FUENTES RIOS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, )

et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 27)

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM FOR HABEAS

REVIEW OF 2004 DISCIPLINARY HEARING

(Doc. 9)

ORDER REFERRING ACTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AS TO

DISMISSAL OF 2004 DISCIPLINARY

HEARING CLAIM

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant petition was filed on January 24, 2008. (Doc. 1). 

Petitioner does not challenge his conviction or sentence; instead, he challenges a 2004

disciplinary hearing and a 2006 gang validation. (Id.). 

On February 13, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition as

untimely. (Doc. 27). On September 11, 2009, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a

Findings and Recommendations recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted

as to the 2004 disciplinary hearing but denied as to the 2006 gang validation determination. 

(Doc. 30). This Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice

1

Case 1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT Document 36 Filed 03/25/10 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

that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On

October 7, 2009, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations, contending that he had never had a fair opportunity to oppose the motion to

dismiss because prison officials had delivered the motion to dismiss to Petitioner with pages

missing. (Doc. 31). Petitioner also complained that the document had been sent to the wrong

address and he received it too late to file an opposition within the original time period for filing

an opposition.

On January 6, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to re-serve the motion to dismiss upon

Petitioner. (Doc. 33). In that order, the Court gave Petitioner thirty days following re-service to

file further objections or opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Id.). That same date, Respondent

electronically filed an Amended Return of Service indicating re-service on Petitioner at his

present address. (Doc. 34). On January 28, 2010, Petitioner filed his opposition to the motion to

dismiss relating to the 2004 disciplinary hearing. (Doc. 35). 

The gravamen of Petitioner’s opposition is that he should be entitled to equitable tolling

because he was unaware that his state habeas petition filed in the Sacramento County Superior

Court on September 13, 2005, had been denied on November 18, 2005 until he read

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 35, p. 4). This is essentially a re-hashing of the same

argument Petitioner raised previously. (Doc. 28, p. 6). Petitioner claims that he never received

nor had any knowledge of the Superior Court’s order denying his habeas petition. 

From the evidence, it appears Petitioner knew or should have known about the denial of

the Superior Court petition earlier. The Superior Court petition was the first state petition that

he filed. Subsequently, Petitioner filed petitions in the California Court of Appeal and in the

California Supreme Court, both in 2007. Petitioner would not have known to file those petitions

had he not been aware that the Superior Court petition had already been decided and denied. As

such, he must have known of that denial by no later than the filing date of his second petition in

the California Court of Appeal on May 30, 2007. Moreover, even assuming Petitioner’s account

is true, it reflects a total lack of diligence in pursuing and exhausting his claims. Equitable

tolling applies only where prisoner has diligently pursued claims, but has in some "extraordinary

2

Case 1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT Document 36 Filed 03/25/10 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

way" been prevented from asserting his rights. Here, if Petitioner is to be believed, he

demonstrated not merely a lack of diligence, but almost indifference, to the outcome of his first

state habeas petition. He does not indicate that he ever made inquiries into the fate of his first

state petition and now evidences surprise that it was denied so many years ago. A petitioner who

fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse his lack of diligence. See 

Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984). Accordingly, the Court

rejects Petitioner’s claim of entitlement to equitable tolling.

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 Recommendations is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections and opposition present no

grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 11, 2009 (Doc. 30), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27), is GRANTED IN PART as to the

claim for habeas relief regarding the 2004 disciplinary hearing, but DENIED IN

PART as to the claim for habeas relief regarding the 2006 gang validation

determination;

3. This claim in the amended petition for habeas relief as to the 2004 parole hearing

(Doc. 9), is DISMISSED; 

4. This action is REFERRED to the United States Magistrate Judge for further

proceedings; and

5. A certificate of appealability as to the dismissal of the 2004 disciplinary hearing

claim is not required in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT Document 36 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3