Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04992/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04992-7/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGEI V. KOROLEV,

Petitioner,

 v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C-05-4992 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

The Court is in receipt of petitioner Sergei V. Korolev’s “Request for Clarification of

Order Filed November 28, 2006,” by which petitioner asserts he is confused by the Court’s

reference to the 757-day period between the date his state conviction became final and the

date his state habeas petition was denied. Specifically, petitioner states he is unclear how

such period is relevant to equitable tolling. Although it is unclear why clarification of the

Court’s order is necessary, the Court, in an abundance of caution, GRANTS the request,

and provides the following “clarification.”

As set forth in the Court’s order of November 28, 2006, to the extent petitioner

intends to allege in an amended petition that he is entitled to equitable tolling, he must

allege that, during the limitations period, he was “pursuing his rights diligently” and “that

some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F. 3d

1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2006). The 757 days referenced by the Court constitute the limitations

Case 3:05-cv-04992-MMC Document 35 Filed 12/18/06 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

period applicable to the instant case. Consequently, unless petitioner can allege facts to

support a finding that, during the above-referenced 757-day period, he was engaged in

diligent efforts to prepare his federal petition and that some “extraordinary circumstance”

prohibited him from filing the petition on a timely basis, he will not be entitled to equitable

tolling. See, e.g., id. at 1070 (holding “non-English-speaking petitioner seeking equitable

tolling must, at a minimum, demonstrate that during the running of the AEDPA time

limitation, he was unable, despite diligent efforts, to procure either legal materials in his

own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04992-MMC Document 35 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2