Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02414/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Josie Gastelo
Respondent
Phillip R. Hernandez
Petitioner
Warden
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP R. HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-2414 KJM DB P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner seeks relief from a sentence of twenty-five years to life following his conviction 

for murder in the first degree with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon. See Pet. 

at 1 (ECF No. 3). His petition for writ of habeas corpus identifies the date of conviction as March 

23, 2015. Id. It also reveals that the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed 

the judgment on July 25, 2018, and that the California Supreme Court denied further review on 

October 10, 2018. Id. at 2. Since the petition in this court was not filed until December 2019, it 

appears that petitioner’s petition is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Case 2:19-cv-02414-KJM-DB Document 7 Filed 01/29/20 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

Acknowledging the petition’s untimeliness, petitioner contends that circumstances beyond 

his control prevented him from filing earlier, to include an institutional transfer in August 2019 

that affected his ability to access the law library and his appellate attorney’s delay in sending 

petitioner the trial transcripts. “Equitable tolling may be available ‘[w]hen external forces, rather 

than a petitioner’s lack of diligence, account for the failure to file a timely claim.’” McMonagle v. 

Meyer, 802 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th 

Cir. 1999)). “A petitioner who seeks equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year filing deadline must 

show that (1) some ‘extraordinary circumstance’ prevented him from filing on time, and (2) he 

has diligently pursued his rights.” Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 646 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010)). The diligence required for equitable tolling 

purposes is “reasonable diligence,” not “maximum feasible diligence.” Holland, 560 U.S. at 653. 

As to the extraordinary circumstances required, the Ninth Circuit has held that the circumstances 

alleged must make it impossible to file a petition on time, and that the extraordinary 

circumstances must be the cause of the petitioner’s untimeliness. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 

1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010), citing Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003).

Even assuming that the reasons proffered by petitioner qualify as “extraordinary 

circumstances,” the Court concludes that petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling because he 

has not demonstrated “reasonable diligence.” As noted, petitioner’s conviction became final in 

October 2018. A letter from petitioner’s appellate attorney, which accompanies petitioner’s 

request to file an untimely petition, reveals that petitioner’s trial transcripts were returned to him 

on or around January 11, 2019, nearly a year before he initiated this case. In addition, while 

petitioner does contend that he had limited access to the law library following his August 2019 

institutional transfer, he does not account for the approximately seven months between January 

2019 and August 2019 when he could have (but did not) file a timely petition. 

Because the Court finds that petitioner did not exercise “reasonable diligence” before he 

submitted an untimely petition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis is granted; and

Case 2:19-cv-02414-KJM-DB Document 7 Filed 01/29/20 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as untimely pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: January 28, 2020

/DLB7;

DB/Inbox/Routine/hern2414.fr.dism

Case 2:19-cv-02414-KJM-DB Document 7 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 3