Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01940/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01940-6/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1940-LAB-BLM

ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE

vs.

DARRIL ADAMS,

Respondent.

On April 29 of this year, Magistrate Judge Major issued an R&R in this case

recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss because, among other

reasons, Vera’s habeas petition was untimely. The Court adopted that R&R on September

3. 

Between April 29 and September 3, Vera filed multiple requests for more time to file

an opposition to the R&R. The Court granted one of those requests, on June 13, 2013, but

didn’t rule on subsequent requests. In its June 13 order, however, the Court said it

“presumes Vera is working on his response even while he awaits the Court’s ruling on his

motion for more time,” which Vera should have understood as applying to subsequent

requests which the Court didn’t immediately rule on. In any event, when the Court adopted

the R&R on September 13 it noted that Vera had still failed to file an opposition:

//

//

- 1 -

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 3
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

It appears, however, that Vera still intends to file an opposition

to the R&R because twice now he has requested even more

time. On July 9, the Court received a request dated July 2 in

which Vera acknowledged his earlier extension but said his lack

of access to the law library and the confiscation of his legal

documents, including his own habeas petition, prevented him

from filing an opposition. (Doc. No. 52.) He asked for an

additional 40 days. Then, on July 22, the Court received

essentially the pleading, but dated June 30. (Doc. No. 56.) The

Court hasn’t ruled on these requests because as far as it is

concerned Vera is on notice that he was granted one extension

and that the Court can rule on the R&R at any time.

In any event, both of Vera’s subsequent requests for more time

to oppose the R&R are DENIED. The Court granted Vera one

extension, pushed his opposition deadline back, and still, nearly

four full months after Judge Major’s R&R was filed, Vera has not

opposed it. The Court is ready to rule on the R&R and will not

wait any longer to hear from Vera.

Unfortunately for Vera, and the Court, at the very time that the Court was considering and

adopting the R&R Vera did file an opposition, albeit a very late one. His opposition was

received by the Clerk’s office on August 30 and forwarded to chambers, but it arrived after

the Court had adopted the R&R and was rejected for being late. More recently, Vera has

filed multiple motions to vacate the Court’s order adopting the R&R, on the ground that he

submitted an opposition to the R&R that wasn’t considered. 

The Court has now read and considered Vera’s opposition to the R&R. While legible,

the seven-page opposition is hard to follow, in places unintelligible, and barely responsive

to the actual substance of the R&R. Vera seems to want to argue that he is entitled to

equitable tolling because he was deliberately moved around the state court system and

denied access to legal materials and a law library. There are at least two problems with that

argument. First, it’s a new argument. As the R&R observed, Vera’s objection to the motion

to dismiss didn’t identify any reasons that he is entitled to equitable tolling. Second, the time

gaps in this case are huge. Vera’s administrative appeal was screened out on June 8, 2005,

giving him until June 8, 2006 to file a federal habeas petition, and he took until July 9, 2012

to file one. Even with the intervening state petitions and corresponding statutory tolling, this

length of time simply can’t be justified.

//

- 2 -

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 3
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

Having read and made its best attempt to consider Vera’s opposition to the R&R, the

Court’s ruling stands. The R&R is ADOPTED, and Respondent’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. The Court will continue to deny Vera a certificate of appealability. Lambright

v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000). Vera may of course ask the Ninth Circuit

for a certificate of appealability, however, and if he is granted one he may appeal the Court’s

ruling. But this case is CLOSED, and the Court will not accept any further pleadings from

Vera.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 3