Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02723/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02723-4/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY THOMAS BRANTLEY,

Petitioner,

vs.

T. FELKER,

Respondent.

No. 2:06-cv-02723-JKS-CMK

ORDER

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

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 25, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, with particular attention to those portions relevant or pertinent to the objections raised, the

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Petitioner’s objection is that he is unable to establish the facts supporting his claim of

entitlement to equitable tolling between January 2006 and December 2006 without an

evidentiary hearing. The magistrate judge assumed that Petitioner was entitled to exclude the

time between the end of his first round of state habeas proceedings, November 13, 2002, and the

time he filed his second round of state habeas proceedings, January 18, 2005. Under controlling

authority that time, which in itself exceeds one year, does not toll the time under 28 U.S.C. §

Case 2:06-cv-02723-JKS-CMK Document 20 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 2
ORDER

Brantley v. Felker, 2:06-cv-02723-JKS-CMK 2

2244(d)(2). Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005); Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006). 

Thus, even if Petitioner could establish an impediment to filing during the January to December

2006 period, it would not benefit him.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 25, 2007, are adopted in full; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Petitioner’s application for a writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. This case is closed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court declines to issue a Certificate of

Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Dated: December 3, 2007

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02723-JKS-CMK Document 20 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2