Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01281-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. Felker
Respondent
Manuel Lee Hunt
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL LEE HUNT,

Petitioner,

v.

T. FELKER,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-1281 OWW TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 5)

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 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 11, 2008, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed

Findings and Recommendations recommending that the petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because the petition was not

filed within the one year time period provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d). (Doc. 5) The Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within 20 days from the date of service of that

order. On March 3, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 6) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C), the District Court has conducted a de novo review

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 03/19/08 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

2

of the case. After careful review of the entire file, including

Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record

and proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections do not present

grounds to overturn the Findings and Recommendations. 

Petitioner offers two reasons why equitable tolling should

be applied to extend the statute of limitations. Petitioner

acknowledges that his petition was filed after expiration of the

one year period authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The

Magistrate Judge has correctly calculated the statute of

limitations. 

Equitable tolling occurs if “extraordinary circumstances

beyond a prisoner’s control” have made it impossible for the

petition to be filed on time. Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct.

(Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir. 1998); Miles v. Prunty, 187

F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (when external forces, not a

petitioner’s lack of diligence, account for failure to file a

timely claim, equitable tolling of the statute of limitations may

be appropriate). 

Petitioner argues that on July 25, 2005, three days after

the denial of his habeas petition by the Court of Appeal of the

State of California, that he was placed in administrative

segregation for delaying a peace officer and necessitating the

use of force. Petitioner claims he remained in administrative

segregation until he was transferred to his current location at

California State Prison High Desert on January 26, 2006. 

Petitioner claims he did not receive his legal material until

around the second week of September of 2005, or access to case

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 03/19/08 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

3

law on September 20, 2005. Voluntary conduct on the part of

Petitioner which caused him to be placed in administrative

segregation is not an equitable circumstance. Petitioner makes

no showing that he was denied mail privileges or the ability to

transmit documents for court filing to or from administrative

segregation. 

Defendant further asserts that equitable tolling is

justified because he placed an order for a typewriter on March 5,

2007, to permit filing of a legible habeas corpus petition, but

that he did not receive the typewriter until July 31, 2007, 145

days after he ordered it. Petitioner states that “gave

Petitioner exactly 50 days to file his petition with the Eastern

District Court.” 

Neither circumstance justifies Petitioner’s failure to

timely file his Federal habeas corpus petition. Petitioner has

shown the ability to file legible handwritten documents and the

delay in receiving a typewriter does not present equitable

circumstances for relief. 

Petitioner’s objections do not present grounds for altering

the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. For the reasons stated above,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 2008,

Doc. 5, as supplemented by this Decision, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is

DISMISSED as barred by the statute of limitations; and 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT for

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 03/19/08 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

4

Respondent and against Petitioner and close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 03/19/08 Page 4 of 4