Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01117/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01117-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Maciel
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. MACIEL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-01117 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #21]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 22, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and the petition be DISMISSED

with prejudice for violating the one-year statute of limitations and for failure to exhaust state

remedies. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to

enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On August 11, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 26 Filed 08/28/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Petitioner first contends the petition should not be dismissed for untimeliness, because he should be

granted equitable tolling. He claims he was unable to timely file his federal habeas petition because

he did not have access to his legal materials and property. 

According to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the instant federal

petition is untimely by 454 days. The statute of limitations expired on June 4, 2004, and the petition

was not filed until September 1, 2005. Petitioner contends he should be granted equitable tolling

from September 18, 2003, the date he was transferred to High Desert State Prison, until July, 2005,

when he acquired a copy of the petition he filed in the California Supreme Court, because he was

denied access to his legal property during this time. In support of his contention, Petitioner submits a

number of exhibits. These exhibits demonstrate that Petitioner’s legal materials which were

contained in some 20-24 boxes, were not available to him during the relevant time period. Petitioner

also states he filed approximately 14 federal civil rights cases in the past several years to secure his

legal property. It is apparent that Petitioner has experienced substantial problems accessing his legal

property.

Nevertheless, the Court does not find that Petitioner should be entitled to equitable tolling.

As set forth in the Findings and Recommendation, equitable tolling is available if the petitioner

demonstrates: “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary

circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). Petitioner has

demonstrated that he has had great difficulty in accessing his legal property, and this can be viewed

as an extraordinary circumstance. However, the Court does not find that the circumstance “stood in

his way.” Throughout his objections, Petitioner complains that he has been litigating his property

issues for many years. The exhibits Petitioner provides demonstrate that he has been litigating his

property claims since at least the year 2000. See Exhibit B, Petitioner’s Objections. According to his

objections, Petitioner states he still did not have access to his legal property when he filed the instant

petition. See p. 8, Petitioner’s Objections. Yet despite being denied access to his boxed legal

materials, Petitioner states he completed his federal petition on August 4, 2005, after his son

provided him a copy of the petition he filed in the California Supreme Court only two to three weeks

earlier. See p. 8, Petitioner’s Objections (“Again, Petitioner submitted yet another appeal (Dated:

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 26 Filed 08/28/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

July 9, 2005) requesting access to his property . . . . During the time that this appeal was still

pending, Petitioner’s son learned of my dilemma and acquired a copy (somehow) of Petitioner’s

petition from the California Supreme Court and had forward this to me, which finally allowed

Petitioner to work on his petition at the end of July, 2005, which he submitted to this honorable

Court on August 4, 2005.”) Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that his lack of legal

materials stood in his way, for it only took two to three weeks and a copy of the state petition to

complete his federal petition. At any point after the denial of the habeas petition by the California

Supreme Court, Petitioner could have attempted to secure a copy of the petition and then file his

federal petition. Moreover, the complaints he alleges in his federal petition are entirely factual; no

case law is cited. In fact, Petitioner summed up his argument in his objections in only one paragraph.

See pp. 1-2, Petitioner’s Objections. It is clear Petitioner could have filed his federal petition at any

time after the California Supreme Court denied his state habeas petition. Instead, Petitioner set aside

his federal legal remedies and opted to pursue extensive litigation with respect to his legal materials.

On this basis, the Court does not find that the limitations period should be equitably tolled some 454

days.

Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the petition be

dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner alleges he fairly presented the federal bases

of his claims to the state courts. However, as pointed out by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner did not

make the federal basis of his claims known to the California Supreme Court. In his state habeas

petition, Petitioner did not cite, analyze or even mention federal law to the state court. The petition

was entirely based on state law and regulations. Therefore, any federal claim raised before this Court

is unexhausted, and the petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 

Petitioner argues that District Judge Robert E. Coyle ruled that Ground One may present a

cognizable federal claim. Therefore, he contends, the state court must have done the same. This is

not the rule. According to Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit jurisprudence, the petitioner must have

specifically told the state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan v. Henry,

513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995); Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th Cir.2000), amended, 247

F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9 Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d th

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 26 Filed 08/28/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). A claim is not fairly presented and thus exhausted unless Petitioner th

specifically indicated to the state court that the claim was based on federal law. Shumway v. Payne,

223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000).

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 22, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 26 Filed 08/28/06 Page 4 of 4