Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00950-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW PASQUALE CHAFFER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0950 LKK EFB P

vs.

K. PROSPER, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents move to dismiss, and petitioner opposes. Respondents replied to

petitioner’s opposition. Petitioner requests time to file an amended opposition to respondent’s

motion. For the reasons explained below, the court denies this request.

On June 26, 2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action on the grounds that

petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies and that the petition is untimely. Respondent

lodged documents in support of the motion. On July 26, 2006, petitioner filed an opposition,

arguing that the petition is timely, in part because a fellow prisoner who prepared the petition

filed in the trial court had control over his legal materials. When that prisoner was transferred,

there was a delay of at least two months in returning the materials to petitioner. Respondent

replied, submitting evidence that the materials were returned to petitioner within a few days of 

Case 2:06-cv-00950-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 03/13/07 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

the transfer. Petitioner wants to amend his opposition with evidence contesting respondent’s

assertions about this delay. However, in the finding and recommendations filed this date, the

court determined that the length of the delay does not affect the outcome of the timeliness

analysis. Therefore, further development of this factual dispute will not assist the court. 

Petitioner’s request must be denied. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s August 31, 2006, request is denied.

Dated: March 12, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00950-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2