Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00725-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felker
Respondent
David Charles Thatcher
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

DAVID CHARLES THATCHER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

FELKER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 22)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 14)

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 October 9, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation that Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as

time-barred be GRANTED, and the action be DISMISSED, with

prejudice. These Findings and Recommendation 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 26, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

//

/

Case 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 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

2

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 Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

The filing of the state petitions did not toll the limitations

period because the state court petitions were found to be untimely. 

The state court's alternative denial of these petitions on the

merits does not negate that the petitions were not properly filed.

See Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 580 (9th Cir. 2003) ("A

state court's application of a procedural rule is not undermined

where . . . the state court simultaneously rejects the merits of

the claim."). 

In the objections, Petitioner appears to argue that his lack

of legal training has made it impossible for him to understand how

to properly file his state and federal habeas petitions. Title 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)'s limitations period is subject to equitable

tolling if “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's

control” have made it impossible for the petition to be filed on

time. Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th

Cir. 1998) (citing Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696,

701 (9th Cir.1996)). Petitioner's basic contention is that he was

unable to comply with the statute of limitations because only an

attorney could understand all of the rules. Petitioner's argument

would apply to most habeas corpus petitioners filing petitions in

this court. Such an argument cannot be the basis for equitable

Case 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 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

3

tolling. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that equitable tolling

is justified in few cases and the threshold necessary to trigger

equitable tolling is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the

rule. Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus,

Petitioner's lack of knowledge about the law and how to properly

file state and federal habeas corpus petitions does not entitle him

to equitable tolling.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed October 9, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as timebarred, filed August 13, 2007, is GRANTED; and,

3. The action is therefore DISMISSED, with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 3