Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00363/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00363-3/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 Counsel was appointed for Petitioner during these proceedings. (Doc. no. 19.)

09cv363

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL VILLALOBOS,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv363-L(MDD)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Petitioner Angel Villalobos, a state prisoner proceeding pro se1

 and in forma pauperis,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Petition be

dismissed. Petitioner timely filed objections. This court issued an Order Remanding Report and

Recommendation for Evidentiary Hearing based on the equitable tolling arguments raised in

Petitioner’s filings. After the evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation Denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (“Report and Recommendation” or

“R&R”). Petitioner filed objections (“Objections”). Respondent did not file a response.

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall

Case 3:09-cv-00363-L-MDD Document 54 Filed 08/05/11 Page 1 of 4
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 09cv363

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, “the district judge must

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc)

(emphasis in original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz.

2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

Although the Magistrate Judge found in Petitioner’s favor that the statute of limitations

should be equitably tolled, that the Petition was timely filed, and that Respondent’s motion to

dismiss should be denied, Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation to the extent it

rejected some of Petitioner’s arguments. Even if the court were to agree with Petitioner’s

Objections, the result would be the same – Respondent’s motion to dismiss would still be denied. 

The initial Report and Recommendation was remanded for an evidentiary hearing

regarding equitable tolling during two periods of time – Period 1, before the filing of Petitioner’s

petition in state court, and Period 2, after his petition was denied in state court. The Magistrate

Judge found that although Petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling during Period 2, he was not

entitled to equitable tolling during Period 1. Tolling during Period 2 was sufficient to render the

Petition timely. Petitioner does not contend that the Magistrate Judge made any errors in

concluding that tolling was appropriate during Period 2. Accordingly, the Objections are

OVERRULED as superfluous and unnecessary.

In the alternative, the Objections are OVERRULED on the merits. First, Petitioner

contends that Respondent had “forfeited” any claims regarding Period 1 because they were not

raised in his motion. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition based on the defense of

statute of limitations. Respondent has no “claims” pertaining to tolling of the statute. Any such

claims are Petitioner’s to raise, not Respondent’s. Moreover, copious evidence regarding tolling

issues during Period 1 was presented at the evidentiary hearing (see R&R at 5-9), and Petitioner

does not contend he was prejudiced. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument that Respondent

waived “claims” regarding statute of limitations during Period 1 is rejected.

Case 3:09-cv-00363-L-MDD Document 54 Filed 08/05/11 Page 2 of 4
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 The court is mindful of Petitioner’s argument that the circumstances during Period

1 could have rendered Petitioner’s state court filing untimely (Objections at 6-8), and that this, in

turn, could have prejudiced his reliance on statutory tolling during the pendency of the state

court petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Ferguson v. Palamteer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.

2003). However, Petitioner’s state court petition was not untimely filed. Because federal

jurisdiction requires an actual case or controversy, and precludes decisions of hypothetical

controversies, U.S. Const. art. III, the court need not address the argument. 

3 09cv363

Second, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to at least 30 days of equitable tolling

during Period 1 because, as the Magistrate Judge found, Petitioner lacked the necessary English

proficiency to prepare his own court filings, and it is undisputed that the English-speaking

inmate who assisted him had no access to the law library during Period 1 due to the conversion

of prison facilities at California State Prison, Los Angeles County and R.J. Donovan

Correctional Facility. In addition, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to at least 55 days of

equitable tolling during Period 1 while his English-speaking assistant did not have access to

Petitioner’s legal materials due to the conversion of prison facilities. Based on an exhaustive

review of the evidence, the Magistrate Judge found that the foregoing did not justify equitable

tolling. (R&R at 4-12.) “[A] petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that

he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in

his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562

(2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A petitioner seeking equitable tolling

bears the burden of showing both that there were extraordinary circumstances and that the

extraordinary circumstances were the cause of his untimeliness in filing the petition in federal

court. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 772 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted, emphasis in original). It is difficult to show that an extraordinary circumstance

caused the delay in filing, when the alleged extraordinary circumstance occurs in the beginning

or in the middle of the limitations period. Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 2001). At

the end of Period 1, Petitioner still had about ten months of his limitations period left. (Id. at

11.) Based on all of the evidence, the Magistrate Judge concluded that there was no

extraordinary circumstance during Period 1 which caused Petitioner’s filing in this court to be

untimely.2

 Petitioner’s Objections do not offer any persuasive argument or evidence to the

Case 3:09-cv-00363-L-MDD Document 54 Filed 08/05/11 Page 3 of 4
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

4 09cv363

contrary. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to equitable tolling during Period

1 is rejected.

Finally, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to statutory tolling during Period 1 because

the prison failed to provide him with legal materials in Spanish. The Magistrate Judge did not

address this argument because he found it unnecessary, as the Petition was timely filed due to

equitable tolling during Period 2. (R&R at 17.) Petitioner has cited no authority for the

proposition that the court was obligated to address unnecessary issues. Furthermore, statutory

tolling was not one of the issues which were remanded to the Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary

hearing. (See Order Remanding Report and Recommendation for Evidentiary Hearing at 7.) 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument based on statutory tolling is also rejected.

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED. The Report and

Recommendation Denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is ADOPTED. Respondent’s

motion to dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. MITCHELL D. DEMBIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:09-cv-00363-L-MDD Document 54 Filed 08/05/11 Page 4 of 4