Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01004-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALPHONSO HAYDEN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-1004 WBS DAD P

ORDER

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss the operative 

petition as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (See ECF No. 22.) On July 1, 2015, the 

undersigned ordered respondent to file with the court, and serve on petitioner, those records 

previously docketed at ECF Nos. 22-1 – 22-7 in chronological order. The parties were also 

directed to file supplemental briefs within 30 days thereafter addressing whether equitable tolling 

of the statute of limitations is warranted in this case. (ECF No. 31.)

On July 31, 2015, respondent lodged the chronologically-ordered records (“Chronological 

Record”) as ordered by the court. (ECF No. 32.) On August 4, 2015, respondent filed a notice 

indicating that the Chronological Record had been served on petitioner. (ECF No. 33) 

On August 24, 2015, petitioner filed a motion seeking to defer the supplemental briefing 

and to further develop the record, contending that respondent had omitted from the Chronological 

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 37 Filed 09/23/15 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

Record certain of petitioner’s medical records. (ECF No. 34.) In support of this motion, 

petitioner submitted a declaration in which he avers that he received copies of the Chronological 

Record at around the same time that he (petitioner) received copies of his medical records from 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner asserts: 

So far I have detected nine medical records that were omitted [from 

the Chronological Record], and I have only gone through twentyfive pages of the records I obtained myself and compared against 

what [respondent] sent. It will take me quite some time to go 

through all 677 pages to compare. 

(Id.) Together with his motion, petitioner has also submitted copies of the nine allegedly-omitted 

records. (Id. at 7-18.) 

 In opposition to petitioner’s motion, respondent states that seven of the nine allegedlyomitted records were included in the Chronological Record, and identifies their location therein. 

(ECF No. 34 at 2.) Respondent concedes that two of the records identified by petitioner were not 

so included, adding, “Respondent did not receive copies of these documents from the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, most likely because of a clerical error as CDCR 

produced over 650 pages of mental health records.” (Id. at 3.) Respondent nevertheless points to 

two documents in the Chronological Record which contain “the same date and information as the 

two missing documents.” (Id. at 3.) 

 The undersigned believes that petitioner should be provided the opportunity to present and 

rely upon a fully-developed record in support of his argument for equitable tolling of the statute 

of limitations in this habeas action. More than three weeks have passed since petitioner filed his 

motion to defer supplemental briefing and to further develop the record. The court will therefore 

grant petitioner an additional fourteen days to identify and notify the court and respondent of any 

documents that he believes are missing from the Chronological Record on file with the court. If 

petitioner then asserts that any records are missing, respondent must then either demonstrate that 

these documents are in fact in the Chronological Record or allow the Chronological Record to be 

supplemented with these documents. Petitioner will, thereafter, be required to file his 

supplemental brief. Petitioner is cautioned that the deadlines set forth in this order are firm, and 

that no further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 37 Filed 09/23/15 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

 Respondent timely filed his supplemental brief in response to the court’s July 1, 2015 

order. (ECF No. 35.) Petitioner has filed a motion to strike the supplemental brief, on the 

grounds that respondent allegedly failed to serve him with a signed proof of serve therewith. 

(ECF No. 36.) Petitioner’s motion will be denied, as it is evident that, regardless of whether or 

not petitioner received a signed proof of service, he was timely served with respondent’s 

supplemental brief. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s motion to defer supplemental briefing and further develop the record (ECF 

No. 34) is granted. Within fourteen days of entry of this order, petitioner is directed to file with 

the court copies of those records that he claims were omitted from the Chronological Record. No 

later than thirty days thereafter, respondent must file with the court a document that identifies the 

location of any allegedly-omitted records in the Chronological Record, if present therein. No 

later than thirty days after respondent’s filing, petitioner must file a supplemental brief that 

conforms to the requirements set forth in the court’s July 1, 2015 order. Petitioner’s brief may be 

no longer than ten pages in length if typewritten, or fifteen pages if handwritten. 

2. Petitioner’s motion to strike respondent’s response (ECF No. 36) is denied. 

Dated: September 23, 2015 

DAD:10 

hayd1004.records 

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 37 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3