Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01416/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01416-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA BLOCKER,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SOTO, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1416 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 10, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations in which the 

undersigned recommended that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted because the federal 

statute of limitations period expired on February 6, 2014, and petitioner did not file the instant 

petition until June 28, 2015. (ECF No. 22.) On May 27, 2016, petitioner filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations. In addition to raising legal arguments concerning procedural 

default, petitioner claims, for the first time, that he suffers from a serious mental illness that 

warrants equitable tolling, and that the failure of prison officials to provide mentally ill inmates 

with adequate legal assistance is tantamount to extraordinary circumstances that also warrants 

equitable tolling. Respondent did not file a reply.

Case 2:15-cv-01416-KJM-KJN Document 24 Filed 07/07/16 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

A. Equitable Tolling

The relevant time frame for the purpose of equitable tolling is from February 5, 2013, the 

date petitioner’s conviction became final until June 28, 2015, the date he signed his federal 

habeas petition, or a little over two years.

Equitable tolling is available to toll the one-year statute of limitations available to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus cases. Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2560 (2010). A litigant 

seeking equitable tolling must establish: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently; and 

(2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 

418 (2005). The Ninth Circuit has explained:

To apply the doctrine in “extraordinary circumstances” necessarily 

suggests the doctrine’s rarity, and the requirement that 

extraordinary circumstances “stood in his way” suggests that an 

external force must cause the untimeliness, rather than, as we have 

said, merely “oversight, miscalculation or negligence on [the 

petitioner’s] part, all of which would preclude the application of 

equitable tolling.

Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir.) (internal citation omitted), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 244 (2009); see also Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 

2003) (petitioner must show that the external force caused the untimeliness). It is petitioner’s 

burden to demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable tolling. Espinoza-Matthews v. People of the 

State of California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2005).

B. Mental Illness

The Ninth Circuit has articulated a specific, two-part test for an equitable tolling claim 

based on a petitioner’s mental impairment:

(1) First, a petitioner must show his mental impairment was an 

“extraordinary circumstance” beyond his control by demonstrating 

the impairment was so severe that either

 (a) petitioner was unable to rationally or factually to personally 

understand the need to timely file, or

 (b) petitioner’s mental state rendered him unable personally to 

prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing.

(2) Second, the petitioner must show diligence in pursuing the 

claims to the extent he could understand them, but that the mental 

impairment made it impossible to meet the filing deadline under the 

Case 2:15-cv-01416-KJM-KJN Document 24 Filed 07/07/16 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

totality of the circumstances, including reasonably available access 

to assistance.

Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (italics in original); 

see also Orthel v. Yates, 795 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A petitioner seeking equitable 

tolling on the grounds of mental incompetence must show extraordinary circumstances, such as 

an inability to rationally or factually personally understand the need to timely file, or a mental 

state rendering an inability personally to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing.”).

Bills provides guidance for applying its two-part test:

[T]o evaluate whether a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling, the 

district court must: (1) find the petitioner has made a non-frivolous 

showing that he had a severe mental impairment during the filing 

period that would entitle him to an evidentiary hearing; (2) 

determine, after considering the record, whether the petitioner 

satisfied his burden that he was in fact mentally impaired; (3) 

determine whether the petitioner’s mental impairment made it 

impossible to timely file on his own; and (4) consider whether the 

circumstances demonstrate the petitioner was otherwise diligent in 

attempting to comply with the filing requirements.

Id., 628 F.3d at 1100-01. 

D. Discussion

Although petitioner did not submit any mental health records, petitioner declares under 

penalty of perjury that he has been diagnosed as schizo-affective disorder, bipolar type I, manicdepressive, a mental disorder/mental incompetence/mental impairment by the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and receiving mental health treatment through the 

Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”). (ECF No. 23 at 11.) Petitioner contends that he is 

entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental illness and because prison officials deny mentally ill 

inmates beneficial access to the law library in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

None of these arguments were addressed in the underlying motion to dismiss because petitioner 

failed to file an opposition, despite being granted multiple opportunities in which to do so. 

Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, respondent is ordered to address petitioner’s 

objections and to provide copies of pertinent mental health records for the relevant time frame. 

Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a reply. 

Case 2:15-cv-01416-KJM-KJN Document 24 Filed 07/07/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, respondent shall file a response to 

petitioner’s objections, including copies of pertinent mental health records for the relevant time 

frame; and

2. Within twenty-one days thereafter, petitioner may file a reply.1

Dated: July 7, 2016

/bloc1416.fb

 

1

 Petitioner is cautioned that he bears the burden to demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable 

tolling under Holland, 130 S. Ct. at 2560, and Bills, 628 F.3d at 1099-1100.

Case 2:15-cv-01416-KJM-KJN Document 24 Filed 07/07/16 Page 4 of 4