Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00409/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00409-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Marshall
Respondent
Alexey Popov
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXEY POPOV, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00409-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 8)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that Respondent's motion to dismiss be GRANTED, and

the action be dismissed, with prejudice, for a violation of the

one-year statute of limitations. These Findings and

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On October 4, 2006, Petitioner

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Court Doc.

11.) Pursuant to Court order, Respondent filed a reply to

Petitioner's objections on January 11, 2007. (Court Doc. 17.) 

Case 1:06-cv-00409-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 01/30/07 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

 Upon arrival at Corcoran, Petitioner was initially placed in the Security 1

Housing Unit due to overcrowding. However, on the same day, he was moved to the

general population. (Reply to Objections, Exhibit A.) 

2

In his objections, Petitioner continues to claim that he is

entitled to equitable tolling because he was transferred twice

during the running of the statute of limitations and was subjected

to institutional lockdowns. (Objections, at 2-3.) Not so. As

Respondent correctly argues, Petitioner has alleged no facts in

support of his claim for equitable tolling based on the transfers. 

Although Petitioner was transferred from Wasco State Prison to the

California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi on June 11,

2002,and then transferred again on April 4, 2003, to Corcoran State

Prison, this does not alone constitute an extraordinary

circumstance requiring tolling of the limitation period.1

Furthermore, Petitioner does not allege facts demonstrating that

the transfers were the but-for and proximate cause of his

untimeliness. Moreover, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that

he was diligently pursuing his rights.

With regard to Petitioner's claim that due to institutional

lockdowns he was unable to timely file his state court petition, it 

too is without merit. Respondent submits that although Facility

III at Tehachapi was on lockdown status at various times during

Petitioner's stay (Reply to Objections, Exhibit B), inmates were

given access to the law library service upon written request to the

Unit Librarian or Legal Officer. (Id. at Exhibit C.) After

Petitioner was transferred to Corcoran State Prison on April 4,

2003, staff used the "paging" system to provide law library access

to the inmates. If specific cases were requested, the staff would

Case 1:06-cv-00409-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 01/30/07 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

gather the material and deliver it to the inmate's cell, which

generally took five days to complete the request. The inmates were

allowed to keep the materials for two weeks. (Id. at Exhibit D,

Decl. of G. Goddard, ¶ 4.) During 2003, there were periods of

lockdowns, and the paging system was used to accommodate the

inmates during this time as well. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Petitioner does

not allege facts demonstrating that the lockdowns were

extraordinary circumstances, or that they were the but-for and

proximate cause of his untimeliness. Nor does Petitioner

demonstrate that he was diligently pursing his remedies during this

time. Although there were lockdowns while Petitioner was housed at

Tehachapi and Corcoran, inmates were still provided access to the

law library, and Petitioner has not alleged that he attempted to

gain access to the law library. Rather, Petitioner merely claims

that because there were lockdowns he could not timely file his

petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has not provided a sufficient

basis for equitable tolling. 

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 7,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss, filed July 3, 2006, is

Case 1:06-cv-00409-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 01/30/07 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

GRANTED for a violation of the one-year statute of limitations;

3. This action is therefore DISMISSED, with prejudice; and,

4. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00409-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 01/30/07 Page 4 of 4