Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00728/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00728-4/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. STREET, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-0728 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #15]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #7]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 17, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED with

prejudice for violating the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Magistrate

Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings

and Recommendation 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. 

Case 1:05-cv-00728-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

On December 16, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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. In his objections, Petitioner contends he should be entitled to equitable tolling

because the Tulare County Superior Court refused to give him a copy of his preliminary hearing

transcripts “for many years.” See Petitioner’s Objections at 2. In support of this contention, he refers

the Court to a copy of the opinion issued on July 15, 2002, by the California Court of Appeal, Fifth

Appellate District (hereinafter “5th DCA”). See Exhibit 22, Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter “Opposition”). In that opinion, the 5th DCA issued a peremptory writ

of mandate directing the Tulare County Superior Court to send a copy of the preliminary hearing

transcript to Petitioner and the parole board for use in Petitioner’s request for parole. Petitioner states

that “once he received those transcripts he filed his present habeas corpus [in state court] and it was

decided in December 2004[;] he then filed his petition in this court.” See Objections at 2. 

Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. First, while Petitioner claims he attempted to obtain

his transcripts for a period of “many years” because of the actions of the superior court, the exhibits

submitted by Petitioner demonstrate that his attempts began in early 2000. See Exhibits 19, 20, 21,

22, Opposition. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, even if the Court were to grant equitable

tolling for this period of time, his petition would remain untimely since the limitations had expired

over two years prior in 1997. Moreover, Petitioner filed two state habeas petitions in 1997 and 1998.

These petitions were filed before Petitioner received his transcripts yet they raised the same claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel and coerced plea. In fact, the Tulare County Superior Court

dismissed his petition of November 3, 2003, for raising the same issues he had raised in his 1998

petition to the 5th DCA. See Document 6, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner has made no

showing why these transcripts were needed to timely file his petition, and Petitioner’s past habeas

filings demonstrate the contrary, that in fact, the transcripts were not needed to file.

Petitioner also complains for the first time that he was taking powerful psychotropic drugs

from the time of his arrest until 1998. See Objections at 4. As a result, he claims he “wasn’t able to

think straight nor do anything for himself legally” and had depended on other inmates in managing

his legal affairs. Id. Again, Petitioner’s claim is belied by the fact that he filed fully briefed habeas

Case 1:05-cv-00728-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

petitions in the state courts in 1997 and 1998.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the objections, the Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and

proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the

points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 17, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00728-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 3