Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01485/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01485-2/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 On June 5, 2006, Jami L. Ferrara was appointed to represent

Petitioner in all further proceedings in this Court.

1 05CV1485 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENAIL SHANE GREEN,

Petitioner,

v.

CHARLES M. HARRISON, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-1485-L(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING

OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

(4-1), 

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

REGARDING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE (3-1)

On July 25, 2005, Petitioner, proceeding pro se,1 filed a

Request for Equitable Tolling Because of Mental Illness (hereafter

“RET”) and a Request for Stay and Abeyance of his Petition.

Request for Equitable Tolling

In Petitioner’s RET, Petitioner states that he did not file

his Petition within AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations because

extraordinary circumstances beyond his control made it impossible

for him to file a timely petition. Specifically, Petitioner claims

that he suffers from serious mental illnesses and is unfamiliar with

the legal system, such that another inmate prepared and filed his

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 10
 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 The Court has not been informed whether Petitioner has pursued his

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the California Court of

Appeal and California Supreme Court.

2 05CV1485 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (RET at 2-3)

Direct review of Petitioner’s conviction concluded on May 29,

2001, ninety days after the period in which to file a Petition for

Writ of certiori with the United States Supreme Court expired. See

28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(A); Bowen v. Roe 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.

1999)

On July 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 4) On September 7, 2005, the Superior Court denied the

Petition. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 5)2

As previously noted in this Court’s Order of June 7, 2006,

the statute of limitations is not tolled from the time a final

decision is issued on direct state appeal and the time the first

state collateral challenge is filed because there is no case

“pending” during that interval. Nino v. Galaza 183 F.3d 1003 (9th

Cir. 1999) cert. denied 529 U.S. 1104 (2000) 

Therefore, between May 30, 2001 (the day after direct review

of Petitioner’s conviction ended) and July 15, 2005 (the date

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the San

Diego Superior Court), the statute of limitations was not tolled

because there was no case pending during that time period.

In order for Petitioner to show that he is entitled to

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to his mental

illnesses, Petitioner must present to the Court evidence of his

mental illnesses during the time period that the statute of

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 10
 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 The Court notes that on June 5, 2006, the Court found, based on

Petitioner’s medical/psychiatric records dated in 2005, that

Petitioner’s mental illnesses entitled him to have a Next Friend and

attorney appointed for him.

4 The psychologist (Hy Malinek, Psy.D.) who submitted the August 3,

2007 report was the same psychologist who previously opined that

Petitioner was not competent to represent himself in this action,

and who issued a report detailing the reasons for that conclusion.

3 05CV1485 

limitations was not tolled (May 30, 2001 to July 15, 2005).3

After an attorney was appointed to represent Petitioner, the

Court allowed Petitioner’s counsel to file Supplemental Briefing

regarding Petitioner’s entitlement to equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations on his Petition. The Court also allowed

Respondent to reply to Petitioner’s Supplemental Briefing. On

November 21, 2006 and December 28, 2006 respectively, Petitioner and

Respondent filed the Supplemental Briefing and Reply to the

Supplemental Briefing.

From January 25, 2007 to May 24, 2007, the Court conducted

numerous status conferences with counsel regarding obtaining further

review of Petitioner’s medical/psychiatric records for the time

period from May 30, 2001 to July 15, 2005. 

On August 3, 2007, Petitioner’s counsel submitted to the

Court a psychologist’s report that analyzed Petitioner’s medical/psychiatric records during the aforementioned time period.4

On September 4, 2007, the Court conducted another status

conference in which it allowed Petitioner and Respondent to file

supplemental briefs regarding Plaintiff’s entitlement to equitable

tolling of the statute of limitations in light of the August 3, 2007

psychologist’s report.

On November 1, and December 20, 2007, Respondent and

Petitioner respectively filed Supplemental Briefs. On December 28,

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 10
 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

4 05CV1485 

2007, Respondent filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief.

Petitioner argues that due to his mental illnesses, his

Petition is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of

limitations. Respondent argues that the Petition is not entitled to

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because Petitioner

has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that his mental

condition from May 30, 2001 through June 2002, made it impossible

for him to file a timely petition.

Petitioner is Entitled to Equitable Tolling of the Statute of

Limitations

The United States Supreme Court has established a two-part

test to determine whether a petitioner is entitled to equitable

tolling of the statute of limitations. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo 544

U.S. 408, 418 (2005), the Court held that generally, a litigant

seeking equitable tolling of the statute of limitations bears the

burden of establishing (1) that he has been pursuing his rights

diligently and, (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in

his way.

Equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations is

available only when extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s

control make it impossible to file a petition on time and the

extraordinary circumstances were the cause of the untimeliness.

Spitsyn v. Moore 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003)

Therefore, whether the limitations period for Petitioner’s

Petition should be tolled depends on whether his mental illnesses

between May 30, 2001 and July 15, 2005 constituted the kind of

extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that made timely

filing impossible.

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 4 of 10
 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 The Court has reviewed the same medical/psychiatric records and

finds Dr. Malinek’s description and analysis of them to be accurate.

6 Risperdal and Zyprexa are used to treat symptoms of schizophrenia

that may include auditory and visual hallucinations, sensing things

that are not there, mistaken beliefs and unusual suspiciousness.

(Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Support of his Request for

Equitable Tolling, November 26, 2006, Appendix C)

7 Trazadone is a medication used to treat depression and suicidal

ideation. (Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Support of his Request

for Equitable Tolling, November 26, 2006, Appendix C)

8 Remeron is a medication used to treat depression. (Petitioner’s

Supplemental Brief in Support of his Request for Equitable Tolling,

November 26, 2006, Appendix C)

5 05CV1485 

A habeas petitioner’s mental incompetency is a condition that

is an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control that justifies

tolling of the statute of limitations Calderon v. U.S. District

Court (Kelly) 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir. 1988), abrogated on other

grounds in Woodford v. Garceau 538 U.S. 202 (2003) Where a habeas

petitioner’s mental incompetence in fact caused him to fail to meet

the AEDPA filing deadline, his delay was caused by an “extraordinary

circumstance beyond (his) control,” and the deadline should be

equitably tolled. Laws v. LaMarque 351 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2003)

Dr. Malinek’s August 3, 2007 Report states that he reviewed

Petitioner’s medical/psychiatic records and examined Petitioner’s

mental state from May 30, 2001 to July 15, 2005. His report states

the following:5

2001

Since January 2001, Petitioner was classified in state prison

as a “medical necessity” for psychiatric/psychological services.

Throughout 2001, Petitioner was prescribed various anti-depressant

and anti-psychotic medications including Risperdal, Zyprexa6,

Trazadone7

 and Remeron8.

In September 2001, Petitioner complained of suicidal ideation

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 5 of 10
 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

9 Paxil is a medication used to treat depression and anxiety

disorders. (Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Support of his

Request for Equitable Tolling, November 26, 2006, Appendix C)

10 Geodon is a medication used to treat schizophrenia. (Petitioner’s

Supplemental Brief in Support of his Request for Equitable Tolling,

November 26, 2006, Appendix C)

11 Zoloft is a medication used to treat depression and anxiety

disorders. (Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Support of his

Request for Equitable Tolling, November 26, 2006, Appendix C)

6 05CV1485 

and stated that he was hearing the voice of his deceased brother

telling him to kill himself. As a result of Petitioner’s statements, prison psychologists and psychiatrists found that Petitioner

was suffering from depression and psychosis.

2002

From January to June 2002, Petitioner was maintained on the

anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medications Zyprexa and Remeron.

In June 2002, Petitioner asked to discontinue his medications

despite continuing to hear voices, because he said he had difficulties tolerating the medications’ side effects.

2003

In 2003, Petitioner did not take Zyprexa or Remeron, but

continued to suffer from a Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise

Specified and Major Depression with Psychotic Features. By the end

of 2003, Petitioner’s condition deteriorated when he began to

experience a recurrence of auditory hallucinations. Plaintiff again

complained that he heard the voice of his deceased brother and the

voice of an aunt, who had recently passed away. In 2003, Petitioner’s medications were changed to Paxil9 and Geodon10.

2004

In early 2004, Petitioner was prescribed the anti-depressant

and anti-psychotic medications Geodon and Remeron. In April 2004,

Plaintiff was prescribed Zoloft11, in addition to Geodon and Remeron.

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 6 of 10
 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

12 Thorazine is a medication used to treat schizophrenia,

hallucinations and delusions. (Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in

Support of his Request for Equitable Tolling, November 26, 2006,

Appendix C)

7 05CV1485 

Petitioner continued to take the prescribed medications, but

his mental health continued to deteriorate. In September 2004,

Petitioner attempted suicide by attempting to hang himself. 

In November 2004, Petitioner’s mental health classification

was changed to “Enhanced Out Patient” after he again began to hear

voices that told him to kill himself. Petitioner was found to be

paranoid, having suicidal ideations and auditory hallucinations.

In December 2004, Petitioner was placed in Administrative

Segregation after he verbalized his belief that he was threatened by

other inmates who may not have existed.

2005

In 2005, Petitioner’s mental health continued to deteriorate.

In March 2005, Petitioner was found to be paranoid and suffering

from auditory hallucinations. In June 2005, Petitioner again

attempted suicide by overdosing on pills he had purchased from

another inmate. After the suicide attempt, his medication was

changed to include Thorazine12 and Geodon.

In June and July 2005, Petitioner was diagnosed as suffering

from schizophrenia.

Dr. Malinek’s and this Court’s review of Petitioner’s

medical/psychiatric records from 2001 to 2005 indicate that

Petitioner’s mental illnesses are extraordinary circumstances beyond

his control, that made it impossible for him to file a timely

petition. 

Respondent’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing.

Respondent posits that Petitioner failed to present sufficient

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 7 of 10
 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 13 The Court notes that Respondent did not submit any evidence to rebut

Dr. Malinek’s interpretation of Petitioner’s medical/psychiatric

records nor his conclusion about them.

8 05CV1485 

evidence to show that between May 31, 2001 through June 2002, his

mental condition precluded his filing of a timely petition.

However, the medical/psychiatric records presented to and reviewed

by the Court, and Dr. Malinek’s interpretation of them, belie

Respondent’s contention.13

From January 2001 through June 2002, Petitioner was prescribed and took numerous medications used to treat his schizophrenia, suicidal ideation, and depression. During that time, Petitioner complained of hearing the voice of his deceased brother

telling him to kill himself. In June 2002, Petitioner discontinued

taking the numerous medications prescribed for him due to his

intolerance to the side-effects of those medications.

From June 2002 to July 2005, Petitioner’s medical/psychiatric

records show a marked deterioration in his mental health. Even

though Petitioner was prescribed medications other than the

medications discontinued in June 2002, he continued to hear voices

telling him to kill himself, and continued to take medications to

treat his schizophrenia and depression. On two separate occasions,

Petitioner tried to commit suicide.

Dr. Malinek concluded “... the entirety of the database

(Petitioner’s medical psychiatric records and his own examination of

Petitioner) certainly raises doubts about (Petitioner’s) capacity to

have timely filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in recent

years... (T)he symptoms (Petitioner) has suffered from are serious

and debilitating. In all likelihood, they have often left him with

limited amounts of energy and even more limited ability to think

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 8 of 10
 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

9 05CV1485 

(about) things clearly and consistently. I doubt that he fully

understood the importance of deadlines, the requirements of the

courts... the manner in which an inmate could file Writs. He is an

individual with limited emotional and intellectual resources and

with an atypical learning disability in addition to a major mental

illness.”

The Court agrees with Dr. Malinek’s conclusions about

Petitioner’s mental condition and his ability to understand the

rules and procedures attendant upon filing a timely Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus. Therefore, Petitioner has established that

his Petition is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of

limitations. As a result, Petitioner’s Request for Equitable

Tolling of the Statute of Limitations is GRANTED.

Request for Stay and Abeyance

On July 25, 2005, Petitioner filed a Request for Stay and

Abeyance, along with his Petition. In the Request for Stay &

Abeyance, Petitioner concedes that claims nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in

his Petition are unexhausted, but that those claims are currently

being reviewed by the state courts.

At this time, the Court is unaware of the status of Petitioner’s efforts to exhaust claim nos. 1, 2, 3 , 4, and 5 of his

Petition.

Therefore, on or before February 25, 2008, Petitioner’s

counsel shall inform the court of the status of Petitioner’s efforts

to exhaust his unexhausted claims. 

If Petitioner’s claims have been exhausted in the state

courts, Petitioner’s or Respondent’s counsel shall lodge with the

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 9 of 10
 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

10 05CV1485 

Court all briefs filed in the state courts and all decisions of the

state courts regarding those claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01485-MMA-CAB Document 84 Filed 01/23/08 Page 10 of 10