Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02741/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02741-10/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

ROBERT GALLEGOS, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2741 MCE GGH P

vs.

D. K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, filed an application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed, on December 12,

2006, a motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations. 

Petitioner’s motion for modification of this court’s August 10, 2007, Order, setting an

evidentiary hearing on the question of whether petitioner can meet his burden to demonstrate

entitlement to equitable tolling, based on a claim of mental illness or incompetency, came on for

hearing on November 29, 2007. Stephanie Adraktas represented petitioner; Alison Alemán

appeared on behalf of respondent. 

At the hearing, petitioner’s counsel clarified that she had brought the motion for

modification based on her concern that petitioner was being restricted solely to presenting

evidence showing that he suffered from mental incompetence that could not have met the

Case 2:04-cv-02741-MCE -GGH Document 70 Filed 12/05/07 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

standard for competency to proceed with trial. However, while the court made clear that

petitioner’s motion would be denied insofar as petitioner sought a different standard for a

determination of mental competency, the undersigned informed counsel for petitioner that

evidence going to petitioner’s mental and physical capacity, or lack thereof, for the purpose of

demonstrating the requisite “extraordinary circumstances,” during the relevant period, as well as

evidence of the effect of medications he may have been prescribed, was not prohibited by the

order at issue.

In addition, the court reaffirmed that the hearing set for February 4, 2008, at 9:00

a.m. remained in effect, as did the deadlines previously set forth for the provision of witness lists

and exhibits, etc., set forth in the August 10, 2007, Order. As to the date of the hearing,

however, petitioner subsequently filed an unopposed motion to re-schedule the evidentiary

hearing due to scheduling difficulties for petitioner’s retained expert witness. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s August 24, 2007, motion for modification of the court’s August

10, 2007, Order, to the extent that petitioner seeks a change of the requisite standard to determine

mental competency, is denied; and 

2. Petitioner’s unopposed request, filed on November 29, 2007, to re-schedule the

evidentiary hearing is granted; the February 4, 2008, hearing date is vacated; and the evidentiary

hearing is re-set to commence on Monday, April 14, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 24. 

DATED: 12/5/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

GGH:009

gall2741.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02741-MCE -GGH Document 70 Filed 12/05/07 Page 2 of 2