Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02189/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02189-2/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

JAMES A. BRINKLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2189 GEB GGH P

vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s January 5, 2007,

motion to dismiss on grounds that this action is barred by the statute of limitations.

In the motion to dismiss, respondent states that petitioner did not file a petition for

review in the California Supreme Court after the California Court of Appeal affirmed the

judgment. In his opposition, petitioner states that he filed a petition for review on July 20, 2004,

which the California Supreme Court denied on July 29, 2004. In support of this claim, petitioner

refers to exhibits B and C attached to his opposition. Exhibit B is a copy of his motion for relief

from default and petition for review. This document does not contain a file stamp indicating the

date that it was filed in the California Supreme Court. Exhibit C appears to be a copy of

petitioner’s prison mail log indicating that on July 29, 2004, petitioner received mail from the

Case 2:06-cv-02189-GEB-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/16/07 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

California Supreme Court.

If petitioner filed a petition for review, as described above, the instant action may

not be barred by the statute of limitations. However, petitioner’s Exhibits B and C do not

adequately demonstrate that petitioner filed a petition for review. Within twenty days of the date

of this order, petitioner shall file a file stamped copy of his petition for review and a copy of the

order by the California Supreme Court denying the petition for review. If petitioner does not

have these documents in his possession, he must file a short declaration to that effect. If

petitioner does not have these documents, the court may direct respondent to investigate whether

on or around July 29, 2004, the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of

this order, petitioner shall file the further briefing described above.

DATED: 5/16/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

brink2189.ord

Case 2:06-cv-02189-GEB-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2