Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05994/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05994-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernest Lee Allen
Petitioner
Art Calderon
Respondent

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

ERNEST LEE ALLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ART CALDERON,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 01-5994 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING AS TO ISSUE OF EQUITABLE

TOLLING AND EXPANSION OF THE

RECORD

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Carolyn D. Phillips, Esq.

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 30, 2006, and Petitioner filed a

traverse on August 25, 2006. (Court Docs. 41, 49.) Therefore, the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus is pending review on the merits. 

In his answer, Respondent argues that the instant petition is barred by the one-year statute

of limitations. In response, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling and requests

permission to expand the record on this issue to develop the factual basis to support his claim. 

(Traverse, at 13.) Specifically, Petitioner contends “[i]t is unknown when [he] became aware of

the denial by the California Supreme Court, or when he received his file from counsel. Mr. Allen

requests an evidentiary hearing regarding the factual basis for equitable tolling of the statute.” 

(Traverse, at 13, n.3.) In addition, Petitioner states that the date he received the Fresno County

Superior Court’s denial of his state habeas corpus petition is unknown, and he requests an

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 12/04/07 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

 Rule 6 states, in part: 1

(a) Leave of Court Required. A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct

discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery. 

(b) Requesting Discovery. A party requesting discovery must provide reasons for the

request. The request must also include any proposed interrogatories and requests for admission,

and must specify any requested documents.

(c) Deposition Expenses. If the respondent is granted leave to take a deposition, the judge

may require the respondent to pay the travel expenses, subsistence expenses, and fees of the

petitioner’s attorney to attend the deposition. 

2

evidentiary hearing and discovery on this issue. (Id. at n.4.)

In addition, Petitioner seeks to expand the record through his own declaration to address

the merits of his underlying claims. (Traverse, at 27.) 

Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under section 2254, provides:

(a) In General. If the petition is not dismissed, the judge may direct the

parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the

petition. The judge may require that these materials be authenticated.

(b) Types of Materials. The materials that may be required include letters

predating the filing of the petition, documents, exhibits, and answers under oath to

written interrogatories propounded by the judge. Affidavits may also be

submitted and considered as part of the record.

(c) Review by the Opposing Party. The judge must give the party

against whom the additional materials are offered an opportunity to admit or deny

their correctness.

Expanding the record may enable the Court to resolve some of the claims without the

necessity of an evidentiary hearing. See e.g. Williams v. Woodford, 382 F.3d 567, 591, 607 (9th

Cir. 2004) (expansion of the record is a permissible intermediate step that may avoid the

necessity of an expensive and time consuming evidentiary hearing.) Rule 6 of the Rules

Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires court approval before conducting discovery.1

Petitioner has not submitted the documentation in support of his request to expand the

record, and Respondent has not had the opportunity to oppose such request.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall

submit any and all documentation in support of his request to expand the record;

and

///

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 12/04/07 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

2. Within thirty (30) days after Petitioner files such documentation, Respondent may

file an opposition to the request to expand the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 3