Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02316/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02316-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Meza
Petitioner
Christian Pfeiffer
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

RONALD MEZA,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-02316-DAD-KJN (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, 

AND DISMISSING ACTION

(Doc. No. 1, 9, 19, 24, 34)

Petitioner Ronald Meza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On October 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss the pending habeas petition 

(Doc. No. 9) be granted because the applicable limitations period expired prior to the filing of the 

petition and petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was diligent in pursuing federal habeas 

relief throughout the limitations period such that equitable tolling should apply in this case. (Doc. 

No. 24.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service thereof. 

(Id. at 19–20.) After receiving several extensions of time to do so, petitioner filed timely 

/////

Case 2:20-cv-02316-DAD-CSK Document 38 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 5
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

objections.1(Doc. No. 35.) Respondent did not file a reply to petitioner’s objections.

In his objections, petitioner now claims that he suffered a mental health crisis on 

December 6, 2014, was admitted to a crisis bed, and was not released until December 10, 2016. 

(Id. at 8.) According to petitioner, he “remains under CCCMS2care and schizophrenic 

remission,” and claims that he gradually regained “cognizance [sic] on or about 7/00/19.” (Id. at 

9.) At that time petitioner asserts that he sought again the legal briefs submitted on his behalf in 

connection with his state court appeal many years earlier from attorney William M. Balin, the 

former partner of petitioner’s state appellate attorney who had since retired, and with assistance of 

inmate Stan Solvery filed a habeas petition on or about October 18, 2020, not November 5, 2020.3 

Petitioner has provided a copy of a mental health treatment plan dated April 11, 2017, which 

noted that his schizoaffective disorder was in remission. (Id. at 18.) He has also provided a copy 

of a declaration signed by his aunt, Carole Nobis, in which she states that she did not receive 

petitioner’s legal materials in 2013, and “lost communication” with petitioner when he “went 

under a mental crisis condition.” (Id. at 42.) 

In addition, petitioner has provided a letter from Associate Warden Lopez at PVSP 

confirming that there is “no record of any trust account activity pertaining to any legal documents 

being mailed out while plaintiff was housed at PVSP, and following a search of R&R and the 

mailroom, no documentation concerning plaintiff’s legal documents were discovered.” (Id. at 

37.) Petitioner appears to argue that this evidence demonstrates that his property was not mailed 

1

 Petitioner also concurrently filed a motion for extension of time to file his objections. (Doc. 

No. 34.) However, petitioner’s objections were filed by the deadline set in the order granting his 

earlier filed motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 32). Therefore, petitioner’s latest motion 

for extension of time is denied as moot.

2

 The Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide for the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation provides four levels of mental health care services: Correctional 

Clinical Case Management System (“CCCMS”); Enhanced Outpatient (“EOP”); Mental Health 

Crisis Bed (“MHCB”) and inpatient hospital care. Coleman v. Brown, No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKKDAD (PC), 2013 WL 6491529, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013).

3

 Petitioner did not indicate where, if at all, he filed a habeas petition on or about October 18, 

2020. The instant petition was filed on November 5, 2020, the date petitioner’s proof of service 

attached to that petition was signed. (ECF No. 1 at 227.) 

Case 2:20-cv-02316-DAD-CSK Document 38 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 5
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

to his aunt as he had requested. 

The Associate Warden’s letter confirms that petitioner arrived at PVSP on May 29, 2012, 

and was transferred to NKSP on November 18, 2013. (Id. at 37.) Petitioner now broadly claims 

he was “without his records (certified documents)” from November 13, 2012 through August 5, 

2020. (Id. at 11.) But he also claims that the writ authored by inmate Edwin Valencia on his 

behalf was discovered among his personal property on November 7, 2013. (Id. at 4.) Thus, as 

noted in the findings and recommendations, because petitioner was released from administrative

segregation on November 7, 2013, and was not transferred out of PVSP until November 18, 2013, 

it is apparent that he had in his possession at least some of his legal materials in his possession 

before his transfer from PVSP and could have filed his habeas petition during that time. (Doc. 

No. 24 at 14.)

 Moreover, petitioner has presented no mental health records confirming his admission to a 

crisis bed, or his release therefrom, and his objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations are not verified, nor are they accompanied by a declaration from petitioner. 

But even assuming petitioner was housed in a crisis bed on December 6, 2014, he has failed to 

demonstrate how such mental health condition, if then present, prohibited him from diligently 

pursuing his habeas claims after he was transferred to NKSP on November 18, 2013 and before 

being admitted to the crisis bed, or after he was released from the crisis bed on December 10, 

2016. In addition, contrary to petitioner’s claim that he didn’t regain his mental health until July 

of 2019, the medical record he has provided the court confirm that petitioner’s schizoaffective 

disorder was in remission as of April 11, 2017.4 (Doc. No. 35 at 18.) Yet, petitioner has wholly 

failed to address the time frame from April 11, 2017 to July of 2019, when he apparently sought 

yet another set of the legal briefs filed on his behalf on appeal in state court from attorney Balin. 

(Id. at 9.) Thus, even if this court were to determine that equitable tolling of the statute of 

limitations was appropriate for the period of time that petitioner alleges his legal property was

missing and unavailable to him, until he was released from a crisis bed on December 10, 2016, 

4

 The court observes that the April 11, 2017 medical record noting that petitioner was then in 

remission does even state the date petitioner was first diagnosed as being in remission. 

Case 2:20-cv-02316-DAD-CSK Document 38 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 5
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

4

petitioner still did not file the instant federal habeas action until November 5, 2020, almost four 

years later, long after the statute of limitations for doing so had expired. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 

objections, the court concludes the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the

record and proper analysis.

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas 

petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

“something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” 

Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 

determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented 

are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will decline to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendation issued on October 22, 2021 (Doc. No. 24) are 

adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 34) is denied as having 

been rendered moot by this order;

3. Petitioner’s motions for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. Nos. 1, 19) are denied; 

/////

Case 2:20-cv-02316-DAD-CSK Document 38 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition for habeas relief as time 

barred (Doc. No. 9) is granted;

5. This action is dismissed with prejudice;

6. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-02316-DAD-CSK Document 38 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 5