Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00702-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Stratton
Respondent
Franklin Taylor
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANKLIN TAYLOR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0702 DFL KJM P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that

the action is not timely.

In his opposition, petitioner lists three reasons why he delayed between the levels

of his state habeas filings: (1) as the result of transfers between prisons, petitioner’s files were

lost; (2) he hired attorney Gary Diamond to pursue his habeas claims, but Diamond abandoned

petitioner and was later suspended by the state bar; (3) petitioner was in lock down during much

of the time, with limited access to the law library or to legal forms.

Petitioner has presented little evidentiary support for his claims. For example,

petitioner has attached the print-out from the California State Bar’s website, showing that

disciplinary charges were filed against Diamond for his mishandling of several habeas matters. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-JKS-KJM Document 6 Filed 01/31/07 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

Petitioner has not, however, presented any retainer agreement or other evidentiary support for his

claim that he in fact hired Diamond, who subsequently abandoned him. Indeed, in his

declaration prepared by attorney Marc Zilversmit, who represented him in a round of state

habeas petitions, petitioner avers that his family was not able to retain a lawyer until they hired

Mr. Zilversmit in 2001. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner is directed to provide

evidentiary support for his claim that he had hired Diamond, who he indicates abandoned him,

plus any evidence showing what steps, if any, he took to ensure that Diamond acted with

diligence in pursuing habeas relief and for his claim that the files relating to his case were lost. 

Petitioner may also file further briefing at that time. 

2. Within thirty days of the date petitioner’s evidence and/or briefing is filed,

respondent may file any rebutting evidence and/or briefing.

3. Petitioner’s reply, if any, is due within fifteen days of the date respondent’s

rebuttal is filed. 

DATED: January 30, 2007.

2

tayl0702.fb

Case 2:06-cv-00702-JKS-KJM Document 6 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2