Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00438/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00438-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABEL OLIVO, No. CIV S-07-0438-RRB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondents’ motion to

dismiss (Doc. 10) filed May 8, 2007. Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. 12) on

May 31, 2007. Respondents did not file a reply.

Respondents’ motion to dismiss is based on the grounds that petitioner failed to

file his habeas action within the one-year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d)(1) and (2). Petitioner argues he should be entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of

limitations due to his transfer from one prison to another without his legal documents, and the

failure of his appellate counsel to provide him copies of his legal records. In addition, petitioner

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00438-JKS-CMK Document 14 Filed 08/24/07 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

argues that time should be extended based on the mailbox rule, so that the date he filed his cases

with both the state and federal court were “filed” as of the dates he sent the documents. 

As respondents have not filed a reply brief, they have not addressed petitioner’s

equitable tolling arguments. The court is requesting additional briefing from the parties on the

following issues:

1. What showing is required of petitioner, in raising equitable tolling, to

show he was diligent in pursuing his rights and has the showing been

made in this case; and 

2 What showing is required by petitioner to prove the timeliness of his

filings pursuant to the mailbox rule and has the showing been made in this

case.

Respondents shall file a response addressing the above-mentioned issues within

30 days of the date of this order. Petitioner will then have 30 days to file a surreply. The parties

will limit their responses to the issues relating to equitable tolling as outlined above. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

1. Respondents shall file a response addressing the issues outlined above

within 30 days of the date of this order; and

2. Petitioner will have 30 days from the date of service of respondents’ brief

to file a surreply addressing the issues raised in respondents’ response.

DATED: August 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00438-JKS-CMK Document 14 Filed 08/24/07 Page 2 of 2