Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02222-4/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

RICHARD M. GILMAN,

Petitioner 2:05-cv-2222-GEB-EFB

vs. ORDER

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a 2002

decision of the California Board of Prison Terms finding him

unsuitable for parole. This matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local General Order No. 262.

On January 6, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss

arguing the petition is untimely and states no federal grounds

for relief. Petitioner opposed the motion. On July 26, 2006, a

Case 2:05-cv-02222-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 7
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

 magistrate judge determined the petition was untimely and

recommended Respondent’s motion be granted. Petitioner has filed

objections pointing out arithmetic errors on the part of the

magistrate judge and asserting grounds for equitable tolling.

The court has conducted a de novo review of this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304 and

hereby grants Respondent’s motion to dismiss for the following

reasons.

On March 13, 2002, a panel of the California Board of Prison

Terms found Petitioner unsuitable for parole. (Subsequent Parole

Consideration Hearing Transcript, dated March 13, 2002, at 39-45

(attached to Petition).) Petitioner filed an administrative

appeal, which was denied March 11, 2003. Petitioner’s

administrative appeal challenging the parole board’s decision was

received on May 24, 2002, and denied on March 11, 2003. 

(Petitioner’s Opp’n, Ex. B.) Petitioner declares, and Respondent

does not dispute, that Petitioner received a copy of the decision

May 2, 2003. (Petitioner’s Opp’n at 2 & Ex. B.)

On November 25, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in the Marin County Superior Court. 

(Petitioner’s Opp’n, Ex. C.) On December 23, 2003, the court

transferred the petition to the Solano County Superior Court. 

(Id.) On January 29, 2004, the Solano County Superior Court

denied the petition. (Petitioner’s Opp’n, Ex. F.) On May 3,

2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Petitioner’s Opp’n, Ex.

Case 2:05-cv-02222-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 7
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

 Neither party has informed the court when this petition was filed but 1

the fact is essential to adjudication of this matter. Therefore, the court

takes judicial notice of the filing date shown on the California Appellate

Courts’ website found at: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case.

The case is Gilman (Richard M.) On Habeas Corpus, Case No. S128939. See Fed.

R. Evi. 201; see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th

Cir. 2001) (court may take judicial notice of other courts’ records for the

fact that an action was dismissed). 

3

G.) That petition was denied May 7, 2004. (Id.) On June 4,

2004, Petitioner filed a second state habeas petition in the Los

Angeles County Superior Court, which was denied on August 12,

2004. (Petition at 2, Ex. C; Petitioner’s Opp’n, Ex. H.) 

On September 15, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal for the Second

Appellate District, which that court denied on September 28,

2004. (Petition at 2, Ex. D.) 

On November 3, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. The original 1

petition to the California Supreme Court was denied on September

21, 2005. (Petition at 2-3, Ex. E.) 

Petitioner filed his federal petition November 3, 2005.

A one year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas

relief begins to run from the latest of the date the judgment

became final on direct review, the date on which a state-created

impediment to filing is removed, the date the United States

Supreme Court makes a new rule retroactively applicable to cases

on collateral review or the date on which the factual predicate

of a claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A properly filed state post

Case 2:05-cv-02222-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

conviction application tolls the statute of limitations. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In California, a properly filed post

conviction application is “pending” during the intervals between

a lower court decision and filing a new petition in a higher

court. Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 223 (2002). 

 The Board’s decision became final on May 2, 2003, the date

Petitioner received it and therefore learned of it. See Burger v.

Scott, 317 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003) (limitations period

began the date Burger learned of the decision to change his

parole reconsideration date); see also Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d

1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (limitations period began to run the

day after Redd received notice of the Board’s decision).

Petitioner had until May 2, 2004, to file a federal petition.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (excluding the day from which the period

begins to run from the calculation of the time), and so absent

tolling, the November 3, 2005, petition is 550 days late. 

Petitioner’s arithmetic objections for the most part have

merit. The court finds that 206 days elapsed between May 3,

2003, and November 25, 2003; 95 days elapsed from January 29,

2004, and May 3, 2004; 28 days elapsed from May 7, 2004, and June

4, 2004; 34 days elapsed from August 12, 2004, and September 15,

2004; 36 days elapsed from September 28, 2004, and November 3,

2004; and 43 elapsed from September 21, 2005, and November 3,

2005. Since there is no dispute that Petitioner was properly

pursuing state post-conviction remedies, he is entitled to 442

Case 2:05-cv-02222-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/29/06 Page 4 of 7
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

 Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to an additional seven days’ 2

statutory tolling because he sought state post-conviction relief without the

assistance of counsel. See Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th

Cir. 2003) (prisoner assisted by counsel does not benefit from the mailbox

rule). For the reasons explained in this order, seven days will not make the

petition timely.

 Petitioner is without counsel and so the court exercises its 3

discretion to consider this argument even though Petitioner raised it for the

first time in his objections. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.

2002).

5

days statutory tolling. Absent equitable tolling, the petition is

108 days late.2

In his objections, Petitioner contends he is entitled to

equitable tolling. A Petitioner is entitled to equitable 3

tolling if he demonstrates that he diligently has pursued his

rights and that some extraordinary circumstance “stood in his

way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); Rasberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006).

Petitioner asserts that he was hospitalized on July 13,

2003, suffered cardiac arrest on July 17, 2003, underwent triplebypass surgery on July 23, 2003, and remained hospitalized until

July 31, 2003. During this time he repeatedly was transferred

from one institution to another and he did not receive his legal

property until about August 12, 2003, after arriving at the

California Medical Facility. He also asserts he did not resume

“normal activities” until December 9, 2003.

Petitioner attaches a prison document showing he had bypass

surgery. Although the date is not on the document, the court

finds Petitioner’s submissions adequate to find that his heart

Case 2:05-cv-02222-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/29/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

condition “stood in his way” for the 30 days from the time he was

hospitalized until he received his legal property. See Laws v.

Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (mental incompetence can

give rise to equitable tolling); Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918,

924 (9th Cir. 2002) (Petitioner was deprived of legal materials

for 82 days during two transfers and received his materials

shortly before the limitation period expired).

But Petitioner’s assertion that he could not resume “normal

activities” until December 9, 2003, is insufficient to

demonstrate that his health “stood in his way.” Petitioner filed

a habeas petition in the Marin County Superior Court on November

25, 2003. He has failed to show he is entitled to equitable

tolling after receiving his legal materials.

For these reasons, the petition filed November 3, 2005, is

untimely. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 26,

2006, are adopted as augmented herein; and

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss filed January 6,

2006, is granted on the ground the November 3, 2005, petition is

untimely.

Dated: September 29, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02222-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/29/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case 2:05-cv-02222-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/29/06 Page 7 of 7