Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02188/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02188-0/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 - 2005cv2188

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONEL L. PATTERSON

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv2188 JM(WMc)

ORDER VACATING CLERK’S

JUDGMENT OF JULY 19, 2006;

DENYING REQUEST FOR A

THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE OBJECTIONS; AND

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS

TIME BARRED

vs.

M. E. POULOS, Warden

Respondent.

This matter comes before the court under unusual circumstances. Without having

considered any Objections from Petitioner, on July 18, 2006 the court adopted Magistrate

Judge McCurine’s Report and Recommendation re: Dismissal of the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus as Time Barred (“R & R”). Shortly thereafter the court learned that Petitioner

had filed a request for an enlargement of time (Docket No. 17, filed July 20, 2006 with a nunc

pro tunc date of June 29, 2006). In order to allow Petitioner an opportunity to file Objections

to the R & R, on July 20, 2006 the court granted Petitioner an extension of time until August 4,

2006 to file any Objections to the R & R. Petitioner did not timely file any Objections and,

on August 17, 2006 he requested additional time to file Objections. On August 25, 2006 the

court granted Petitioner until September 29, 2006 to file any Objections. On September 29,

2006 Petitioner filed a third request for additional time to file Objections. Petitioner still has

not filed any Objections.

Case 3:05-cv-02188-JM-WMC Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 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

- 2 - 2005cv2188

The July 18, 2006 Order

 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 and 60, the court finds that it is in the interests of justice to

vacate the judgment of dismissal entered on July 18, 2006 in order to permit Petitioner an

opportunity to pursue a timely appeal of the present order should he so desire. The court

would not have adopted the R & R on July 18, 2006 had it been aware of Petitioner’s request

for an extension of time. In light of the ordinary hardships imposed by incarceration, the court

routinely grants reasonable requests for enlargement of time from incarcerated individuals.

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is instructed to vacate the judgment entered on July 19, 2006.

The Third Request for an Extension of Time

As with the previous requests, Petitioner represents that he has been unable to complete

his legal research before filing his Objections. The court denies Petitioner’s third request for

an extension of time. The court notes that the R & R concluded that the Petition was time

barred because it was filed over ten months after the expiration of AEDPA’s one year statute

of limitations. While AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling, such relief

is available only under extraordinary circumstances. See Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court, 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997). Petitioner earlier argued that equitable tolling

principles applied to his case because of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The

R & R rejected this circumstances as a ground to equitably toll the statute of limitations. 

To demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, as explained in the R & R, Petitioner must

set forth factual circumstances warranting relief. Presumably, Petitioner is aware of the factual

circumstances surrounding his case. No legal research is required for Petitioner to marshal

facts to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances bearing on equitable tolling. Because

Petitioner has had three opportunities to submit Objections, and fails in any of his requests for

an extension of time to identify any factual circumstance warranting equitable tolling,

Petitioner fails to demonstrate good cause warranting another extension of time.

In sum, the court denies Petitioner’s third request for an extension of time to submit

Objections to the R & R.

/ / / 

Case 3:05-cv-02188-JM-WMC Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 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

- 3 - 2005cv2188

The R & R

Having carefully considered Magistrate Judge McCurine’s R & R, the record before the

court, the absence of any Objections to the R & R, and applicable authorities, the court adopts

the R & R in its entirety. 

In sum, the court vacates the July 19, 2006 judgment of dismissal, denies the request

for any further extension of time, and adopts the R & R in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is

instructed to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2006

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:05-cv-02188-JM-WMC Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3