Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05744/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05744-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LUCIUS OLIVER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-05744 ALA HC

vs.

MIKE E. KNOWLES, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner James Lucius Oliver is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel with an

application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 27, 2007, Respondent

filed an amended answer, which alleged that Mr. Oliver’s application is barred by the statute of

limitations. On June 6, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended traverse with a general denial that his

petition is time barred. On December 4, 2007, this Court ordered that Petitioner be appointed

counsel in light of the complexities of the legal issues involved and that the parties file and serve

status reports. On January 9, 2008, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report in which he stated

that equitable tolling may apply to benefit the petitioner. Status Report of James Lucius Oliver. 

Respondent argues in the amended answer that Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas

corpus is barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner’s status report’s reference to “whether

Case 1:03-cv-05744-ALA Document 40 Filed 02/04/08 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

2

equitable tolling principles apply to benefit petitioner,” may be intended to suggest that there is a

statute of limitations issue and that equitable tolling should be taken into consideration. Id.

Equitable tolling is available only when “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s

control make it impossible to file a petition on time.” Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th

Cir. 2003). The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the extraordinary

circumstances caused the delay in filing. Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Petitioner’s amended traverse does not discuss the applicability of equitable tolling. 

Because Petitioner is now proceeding with counsel, his attorney must demonstrate whether

equitable tolling principles apply, if the statute of limitations would bar this application.

/////

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is ordered to file a brief discussing the facts, if such exist, which

demonstrate that equitable tolling principles apply in this matter within twenty-eight (28) days of

this order. 

2. Respondent may file a reply within fourteen (14) days after receipt of Petitioner’s

brief. 

DATED: February 4, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón__________________

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:03-cv-05744-ALA Document 40 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2