Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01498/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01498-4/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL M. WRIGHT, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

RICHARD KIRKLAND, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01498 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #14]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS [Doc. #9]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 18, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED for

violating the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Magistrate Judge further

recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On June 4, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner

Case 1:06-cv-01498-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

claims the statute of limitations should be tolled because he lacks knowledge of the law, he is

indigent, and he attempted to request an extension of time from the U.S. District Court in the

Northern District of California.

Petitioner’s arguments are without merit. Petitioner sent his letter to the Northern District on

January 10, 2000, wherein he stated he did not know whether there was a deadline or not and

requested an extension of time. See Exhibits A and B, Petitioner’s Opposition. The letter was

returned to Petitioner with a copy of the Local Rules on or about January 20, 2000. See Exhibit C,

Opposition. Petitioner then delayed until November 3, 2000, when he sought assistance from the

California Western School of Law Institute for Criminal Defense Advocacy California Innocence

Project. See Exhibit D, Opposition. His request for assistance was denied on November 27, 2000. Id. 

The Court finds no good cause to grant equitable tolling for any of these time periods. By the

time Petitioner sent a letter to the Northern District, almost 9 months of the limitations period had 

expired. He was promptly given a copy of the Local Rules since his letter clearly was insufficient to

begin a federal action. Nevertheless, he sat on his rights again until seeking assistance from

California Western School of Law nearly 10 months later. Petitioner has shown no valid justification

for these extended time delays. His claims of indigence and lack of legal knowledge are not

exceptional; they are shared by the vast majority of inmates attempting to timely file federal habeas

petitions. 

Petitioner argues that he was subjected thereafter to lockdowns, moves, and placements in

administrative segregation. However, he provides no specifics for these events or how they

prevented him from timely filing his petition. Further, these events took place long after the

limitations period had already expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01498-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 18, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01498-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3