Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01538/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01538-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SURGIO VALENCIA BALTAZAR,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01538-BAM HC

ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO 

SUPPLEMENT RECORD WITH 

DOCUMENTATION OF FILING

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 On April 14, 2015, Respondent moved to dismiss claims two

through six of the first amended petition as untimely. On April 27, 2015, Petitioner opposed the 

motion, contending that since the statute of limitations was tolled by Petitioner's October 28, 

2013, filing of a state habeas corpus petition in Merced County Superior Court, claims two 

through six, as set forth in the petition pending before this Court had been timely filed. On May 

21, 2015, Respondent filed the letter of Linda Romero Soles, Court Executive Officer for the 

Criminal Division of the Merced County Superior Court, stating that the Court had no record of 

Petitioner's filing a state petition for habeas corpus on or about October 28, 2013. Petitioner did 

not respond.

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States 

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:13-cv-01538-SKO Document 40 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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

To ensure the accuracy and completeness of the record, the Court hereby GRANTS 

Petitioner 30 days from the date of this order to supplement the record with any additional 

documentary evidence concerning his submission of claims two through six in a California state 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court will then take the motion under submission and 

issue its order in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01538-SKO Document 40 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 2