Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01392/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01392-1/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 - 06cv1392

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATONNE A. SINGLETON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv1392-IEG(BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 13];

REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

FILE ANSWER TO PETITION

vs.

L.E. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Latonne A. Singleton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moved to dismiss arguing the

petition was time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On February 9, 2007, Magistrate Judge

Barbara L. Major filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the Court deny

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2007, Respondent filed objections. On March 27,

2007, Petitioner filed a written reply to the objections. 

Following de novo review, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court REJECTS

Respondent’s objections to the R&R, ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R, DENIES Respondent’s

motion to dismiss, and ORDERS Respondent to file an answer to the Petition.

Background

The relevant procedural background is fully set forth in Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R. 

The California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for review on direct appeal on May 12,

Case 3:06-cv-01392-IEG-BLM Document 22 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Magistrate Judge Major properly afforded Petitioner the benefit of the mailbox rule under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266, 276 (1988).

2

Again, Magistrate Judge Major properly afforded Petitioner the benefit of the mailbox rule.

- 2 - 06cv1392

2004. [R&R, p. 7 (citing Lodgment 2).] Petitioner’s conviction, therefore, became final on

August 10, 2004, upon the expiration of the 90-day period in which Petitioner could have sought

certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. [Id. (citing Bowden v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-

59 (9th Cir. 1999)).] 

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition seeking review by the California Supreme Court on

September 7, 2004,1 twenty-seven days after his conviction became final. [R&R, p. 4 (citing

Lodgment 4.] The California Supreme Court denied the habeas corpus petition on July 27, 2005. 

[R&R, p. 4, (citing Lodgment 5).] Petitioner filed his federal habeas corpus petition on July 3,

2006, 340 days after the California Supreme Court denied his habeas corpus petition.2 [R&R,

p. 10.]

The statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) during the

pendency of Petitioner’s state habeas corpus proceedings. However, the statute ran for 27 days

between the time Petitioner’s conviction became final on August 10, 2004 and the date Petitioner

filed his state habeas corpus petition on September 7, 2004. The statute then ran for 340 days from

the denial of Petitioner’s state habeas corpus petition on July 27, 2005 until he filed his federal

habeas corpus petition on July 3, 2006. As a result, the statute of limitations ran for a total of 367

days after Petitioner’s conviction became final and before Petitioner filed his federal habeas

corpus petition. [R&R, p. 10.] Neither Petitioner nor Respondent dispute Magistrate Judge

Major’s calculation of these dates. As a result, the Petition was filed two days late and is barred

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) absent equitable tolling.

Magistrate Judge Major’s Report and Recommendation and Respondent’s Objections

Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition, arguing it was barred by 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2). In opposition to the motion, Petitioner argued the Court should find the statute of

limitations was equitably tolled because his access to the law library was impacted by the almost

continuous full or modified lockdown status of the prison since May 26, 2004. 

Case 3:06-cv-01392-IEG-BLM Document 22 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 - 06cv1392

Magistrate Judge Major found, based upon the facts set forth by Petitioner in his

opposition, that Petitioner had “diligently pursued his rights.” [R&R, p. 14, (citing Pace v.

DiGulielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) and Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Magistrate Judge Major further found, based upon Petitioner’s substantial evidence documenting

the duration of the lockdowns at Calipatria State Prison and the limitations imposed upon his

ability to access the law library during those lockdowns, that Petitioner had shown “extraordinary

circumstances.” [R&R, pp. 15-16 (citing Pace, 544 U.S. at 418).] Finally, Magistrate Judge

Major found, based upon the extensive duration of the lockdowns and the and onerous restrictions

imposed during those lockdowns, that “the library access restrictions ‘were the but-for and

proximate cause of [Petitioner’s] untimeliness’ for at least three days . . . .” [R&R, p. 17 (citing

Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 2001)).] As a result, Magistrate Judge Major found the

federal habeas corpus petition was timely.

Respondent objects to Magistrate Judge Major’s finding the Petitioner is entitled to

equitable tolling. Even assuming the prison lockdowns are considered to be “extraordinary

circumstances,” Respondent argues the lockdowns were not the cause of Petitioner’s untimeliness.

Respondent points out Petitioner’s four claims are nearly identical to those raised in the state

habeas corpus petition, such that Petitioner did not need access to the law library to assert those

claims in his federal habeas corpus petition. Respondent argues the Magistrate Judge engaged in

an ends-means analysis to cure the two day default, pointing to the fact the Petitioner was able to

eventually file his petition despite the continuous modified lockdown conditions at the prison.

Discussion

The Ninth Circuit has held AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling

when “extraordinary circumstances” beyond a prisoner’s control prevented him from timely filing

his petition. Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Pace

v. DiGulielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (assuming, without deciding, that the statute of

limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) may be equitably tolled). Petitioner bears the burden of

demonstrating equitable tolling is appropriate. Lawrence v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct.

1079, 1085 (2007). The petitioner’s burden is very high, Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1069

Case 3:06-cv-01392-IEG-BLM Document 22 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 5
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 3

It is particularly appropriate that a habeas petitioner be given an opportunity to conduct research prior to filing a federal

habeas corpus petition in light of AEDPA’s limitations upon the filing of successive petitions.

- 4 - 06cv1392

(9th Cir. 2002), and the court’s inquiry must be “highly fact-dependent.” Whalem/Hunt v. Early,

233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000); Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2002).

In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner offered at least ten factual bases to

support his claim extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing his petition.

[R&R, pp. 11-13; Petitioner’s Response, pp. 3-6.] Petitioner also provided documentary proof

showing the prison was on continuous lockdown status from shortly after the California Supreme

Court denied his state habeas petition through the time he filed his federal habeas corpus petition.

Petitioner discussed the impact of those lockdowns upon his ability to pursue his legal remedies. 

Magistrate Judge Major fully considered each of these reasons. [R&R, pp. 11-13.] Respondent

has not disputed the evidentiary showing made by Petitioner in support of the application of

equitable tolling. Respondent has not provided any contrary evidence regarding the nature and

extent of the prison lockdowns or the limitations imposed upon Petitioner’s ability to access the

law library as a result of the lockdowns.

As Magistrate Judge Major noted in her Report and Recommendation, the fact Petitioner

missed the statute of limitations by two days does not justify application of equitable tolling.

However, Petitioner has made an extensive factual showing that his access to the law library was

substantially impacted by the continuous modified lockdown status. Respondent makes much of

the fact Petitioner’s claims are nearly identical to those contained in his state petition. 

Nonetheless, Petitioner was entitled to the opportunity to conduct additional research regarding

those claims, and determining whether those were the only claims he would raise, prior to filing

the federal petition.3

 The continuous modified lockdown conditions at the prison hindered

Petitioner’s ability to complete his research and draft his federal habeas corpus petition in a timely

manner.

Therefore, the Court hereby REJECTS Respondent’s objections to Magistrate Judge

Major’s Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS in full the Report and Recommendation. 

Petitioner is entitled to at least three days of equitable tolling, rendering his federal habeas corpus

Case 3:06-cv-01392-IEG-BLM Document 22 Filed 05/02/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 06cv1392

petition timely. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

Respondent shall file an Answer, addressing the merits of the claims raised in the Petition,

on or before June 11, 2007. Petitioner may file a traverse on or before June 25, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2007

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01392-IEG-BLM Document 22 Filed 05/02/07 Page 5 of 5