Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03141/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03141-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Martel
Respondent
Zeferino Ortiz Vasquez
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

ZEFERINO ORTIZ VASQUEZ,

Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-03141 GEB KJN P

vs.

MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. By order filed December 8, 2009, the parties were directed to file a joint

scheduling statement within thirty days. Petitioner filed a motion for substitution of counsel,

which was granted on December 18, 2009, and on January 7, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for

sixty day extension of time to comply with the court’s prior order. Petitioner’s request was

granted on January 25, 2010.

On March 9, 2010, petitioner filed a second request for a sixty day extension of

time, which was granted by the undersigned on March 11, 2010.

On May 7, 2010, petitioner, rather than file a joint scheduling statement, filed a

motion to stay this action pending a decision in Holland v. Florida, 539 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.

2008), cert. granted, 78 U.S.L.W. 3206 (U.S. October 13, 2009) (No. 09-5327). In Holland, the

Case 2:09-cv-03141-GEB-KJN Document 24 Filed 06/08/10 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

 Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler) was subsequently overturned by 1

Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998), which

was then abrogated by Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003), each on other grounds

(petition was not “pending” before district court on effective date of AEDPA).

2

Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether

“gross negligence” by collateral counsel, which directly results in

the late filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, can qualify

as an exceptional circumstance warranting equitable tolling, or

whether, in conflict with other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit was

proper in determining that factors beyond “gross negligence” must

be established before an extraordinary circumstance can be found

that would warrant equitable tolling.

Holland v. Florida, (Mot. to Stay, Ex. 1). Petitioner notes that respondents intend to file a motion

to dismiss this action based on statute of limitations grounds, but argue this court should refrain

from deciding such a motion until such time as the Supreme Court rules on the issue of equitable

tolling. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Holland on March 1, 2010. Id. 

On May 21, 2010, respondents filed an opposition to the motion to stay as

premature. Respondents contend the court should first order briefing on the motion to dismiss

this action as barred by the statute of limitations. 

AEDPA sets a one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal

habeas petition seeking relief from a state court judgment. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This limitations period is subject to equitable

tolling. See, e.g., Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969 (9th

Cir.2006). To receive equitable tolling, “ ‘[t]he petitioner must

establish two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in

his way.’ ” Bryant v. Arizona Atty. Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1061

(9th Cir.2007) (quoting Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153

(9th Cir.2006)). The petitioner must additionally show that “ ‘the

extraordinary circumstances were the cause of his untimeliness,’ ”

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

and that the “ ‘extraordinary circumstances ma[de] it impossible to

file a petition on time,’ ” Roy, 465 F.3d at 969 (quoting Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th

Cir.1997)).1

Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2009) (remand to district court to set forth facts

supporting equitable tolling). 

Case 2:09-cv-03141-GEB-KJN Document 24 Filed 06/08/10 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

3

Defendants’ position is well-taken. Because no dispositive motion has yet been

filed, nor opposition received, this court cannot determine whether Holland will be helpful or

availing in the instant action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to stay this action pending Holland

will be denied without prejudice. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to stay this case pending a decision in Holland v. Florida,

539 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 78 U.S.L.W. 3206 (U.S. October 13, 2009) (No.

09-5327), is denied.

2. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, counsel shall file a joint

scheduling statement that complies with the court’s December 8, 2009 order, including a

proposed expeditious briefing schedule on defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. Failure to

timely submit the joint scheduling statement may result in the imposition of sanctions.

DATED: June 7, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

vasq3141.den

Case 2:09-cv-03141-GEB-KJN Document 24 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 3