Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06030/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06030-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER STOKELY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOE McGRATH, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 01-6030 AWI WMW HC

ORDER REQUIRING

RESPONDENT TO FILE

ANSWER

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO SERVE

DOCUMENTS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. This petition was filed on July 21, 2001.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 3, 2002, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case entered findings and

recommendations recommending that this petition be dismissed as barred by the one year

statute of limitations set forth in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”). The Magistrate Judge found that the statute of limitations had run on May 22,

1997, and that Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling during the four-year gap

Case 1:01-cv-06030-LJO -WMW Document 58 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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

between his first and second state collateral actions. The Magistrate Judge further found that

Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling based on the allegation that the delay was due

to medical reasons. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had not carried

his burden of showing that his mental health problems had rendered him unable to timely file

his habeas petition, because he did not provide any specific information describing his

mental illness. The court noted that Petitioner did not “describe his condition, nor does he

provide the dates during which he was affected by his condition.”

On October 28, 2002, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings

and recommendation. Attached to the objections was a psychological report dated

September 16, 1996. On December 16, 2002, the District Judge adopted the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

Petitioner appealed the judgment. On September 10, 2004, after the parties made a

joint motion for summary reversal of this court’s order dismissing the petition, the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. Respondent stipulated to a

remand of this case in light of the decision in Laws v. LaMarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9 Cir. th

2003), which was decided after this court issued its decision in this case. The matter was

remanded for “further factual development and, if appropriate, an evidentiary hearing on

whether appellant is entitled to equitable tolling.” 

Counsel was appointed on remand. Pursuant to this court’s order, the parties filed 

submitted supplemental briefs “addressing the issue of whether a need exists for an

evidentiary hearing on whether Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling.”

On February 8, 2006, this court issued an order denying Petitioner’s request for a

status conference and granting Petitioner thirty (30) days within which to file a second

supplemental brief addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claim for equitable tolling,

particularly in light of the further factual development provided by the documents from

Petitioner’s Central File. Respondent was granted thirty (30) days thereafter to file a

Case 1:01-cv-06030-LJO -WMW Document 58 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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

response and Petitioner was granted fifteen (15) days thereafter to file a reply to

Respondent’s response. Petitioner filed his second supplemental brief on May 9, 2006 and

Respondent filed his response on August 8, 2006. 

In his response, Respondent requests that this court decide the petition on the merits

without deciding the equitable tolling issue. Respondent does not concede the equitable

tolling issue, but argues correctly that this court may properly deny a petition on the merits

without addressing equitable tolling issues. See Franklin v. Johnson , 290 F.3d 12234, 1232

(9 Cir. 2002) (“appeals courts are empowered to, and in some cases should, reach the merits th

of habeas petitions if they are, on their face and without regard to any facts that could be

developed below, clearly not meritorious despite an asserted procedural bar”). Petitioner did

not file a reply to Respondent’s response.

In order to properly determine whether this court may address the merits of the

present petition without addressing the equitable tolling issue, this court must examine

Respondent’s response to the merits of the petition. Accordingly, Respondent SHALL

SUBMIT a RESPONSIVE pleading by filing the following: 

1. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petition and due within forty-five

(45) days of the date of service of this order. Rule 4, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-1474 (9 Cir. th

1985) (court has discretion to fix time for filing an Answer.).

1) Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all

transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the

issues presented in the Petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases.

2) Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally

defaulted a claim(s) SHALL BE MADE in an ANSWER that also

addresses the merits of the claims asserted. This is to enable the Court

Case 1:01-cv-06030-LJO -WMW Document 58 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

to determine whether Petitioner meets an exception to procedural

default. See, Paradis v. Arave, 130 F.3d 385, 396 (9 Cir. 1997) th

(Procedurally defaulted claims may be reviewed on the merits to serve

the ends of justice); Jones v. Delo, 56 F.3d 878 (8 Cir. 1995) (the th

answer to the question that it is more likely than not that no reasonable

juror fairly considering all the evidence, including the new evidence,

would have found Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

necessarily requires a review of the merits). 

3) Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due THIRTY (30) days from the

date Respondent’s Answer is filed with the Court.

2. Unless already submitted, both Respondent and Petitioner SHALL

COMPLETE and RETURN to the Court, a Consent form indicating whether

the party consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of a the United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument

unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h). All provisions of Local Rule

11-110 are applicable to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06030-LJO -WMW Document 58 Filed 02/06/07 Page 4 of 4