Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05819/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05819-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Knowles
Respondent
Tommy Ray Williams
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY RAY WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MIKE KNOWLES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-CV-5819 JMD HC

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SUBMIT

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING REGARDING

THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Procedural History

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to

a judgment of the Tuolumne County Superior Court. The court imposed an indeterminate prison

term of fifteen years to life for second degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187) and a concurrent term

of three years for driving under the influence causing injury (Cal. Vehicle Code § 23153(a)). 

(Answer at 1-2.).

On May 9, 2002, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Tuolumne County

Superior Court. On September 19, 2002, the court denied the petition. (Answer at 2; Lodged Doc.

2, Exs. 2-3.)

On October 3, 2002, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 70 Filed 03/04/10 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 2

Court of Appeal. On November 14, 2002, the court summarily denied the petition. (Answer at 2;

Lodged Doc. 2, Exs. 4-5.)

On December 10, 2002, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Supreme Court. On April 30, 2003, the court summarily denied the petition. (Answer at 2; Lodged

Doc. 2, Exs. 6-7.)

Petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court on June 16, 2003. On December 3,

2003, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. (Doc. 11). 

Petitioner appealed the Court’s order of dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on

December 29, 2003. (Doc. 13). 

On November 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals vacated the Court’s order of dismissal and

remanded the case “for further factual development, and if determined appropriate by the District

Court, an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) whether Petitioner satisfied the actual innocense test

set forth in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995); (2) whether the statute of limitations began to run

on August 30, 2001, the date Petitioner discovered the factual predicate for his claims; and (3)

whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled until August 30, 2001.” (Doc. 23.).

Respondent filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss on April 18, 2005, asserting once again that

the petition was untimely. (Doc. 28). On September 27, 2005, Petitioner’s counsel filed an

Opposition to Respondent’s Motion, supported, inter alia, by a Declaration from Petitioner, prison

mail logs, and the case log of trial counsel. (Doc. 37).

The parties’ briefs and supporting affidavits concerning Respondent’s renewed Motion to

Dismiss created factual dispute regarding the critical question of when Petitioner discovered the

contents of the victim’s autopsy report. (See Doc. 40 at 10). After reviewing the evidence, the Court

accepted, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, Petitioner’s representation that his counsel

did not inform him of the specific contents of the autopsy report. (Id. at 11). 

Based on the Court’s finding that Petitioner did not discover the contents of the autopsy

report until September of 2001, the Court found that Petitioner’s action was based on newly

discovered evidence and was therefore timely. (Id. at 12). Alternatively, the Court found that

Petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling because Petitioner’s inability to obtain his public defender

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 70 Filed 03/04/10 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 3

file– and thus the autopsy report– constituted an “extraordinary circumstance” preventing Petitioner

from filing his claim. (Id. at 14). The Court denied Respondent’s renewed motion to dismiss. (Doc.

40).

Respondent filed a motion of reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the Motion to

Dismiss on April 7, 2006. (Doc. 41). The Court denied Respondent’s motion for reconsideration on

July 19, 2006. (Doc. 43).

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on October 19, 2006. (Doc. 45). Petitioner filed a

traverse on December 20, 2006. (Doc. 48).

On August 6, 2008, the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing in order to receive evidence on

Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Doc. 51). The Court conducted the evidentiary

hearing on April 29, 2009.

Petitioner filed a post-evidentiary hearing brief on July 27, 2009. (Doc. 64). Respondent

filed its post-evidentiary hearing brief on September 16, 2009. (Doc. 69). Respondent’s postevidentiary brief reasserts the statute of limitations defense. (Id. at 9-11).

Discussion

In June of 1998, Petitioner was driving under the influence of alcohol when his vehicle struck

a motorcycle being ridden by the victim. (Ev. Hearing Trans. at 31; 54). The victim was taken to the

hospital and underwent surgery. (Id. at 55). After surgery, hospital staff placed a feeding tube in the

victim improperly, causing an infection which ultimately led to the victim’s death. (Id.). The

victim’s autopsy report states that the victim’s death was “attributed to peritonitis resulting from an

improperly placed feeding tube...blunt force head trauma, while significant, would not seem to be

sever enough to lead to death as a primary cause.” (Doc. 38, Ex. H.).

On October 1, 1998, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of second degree murder

and one count of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs causing injury. Petitioner contends

his plea was tainted by his counsel’s constitutionally ineffective assistance. Specifically, Petitioner

contends that his attorney did not advise him of the contents of the autopsy report and did not

adequately advise Petitioner regarding his potential defense to the crime of second degree murder.

///

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 70 Filed 03/04/10 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 4

The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on April 29 in order to ascertain the nature of counsel’s

investigation of Petitioner’s causation defense and the quality of her advice to Petitioner.

At the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner revealed that, contrary to statements made in his sworn

affidavit, Petitioner’s counsel discussed the specific contents of the autopsy report with him before

he entered his plea. (Ev. Hearing Trans. at 11). As Petitioner’s alleged ignorance of the contents of

the autopsy report was the basis for the Court’s prior adjudication of the statute of limitations issue,

the Court must revisit the issue.

Petitioner is directed to submit briefing on the issue of whether he is entitled to equitable

tolling in light of his testimony at the evidentiary hearing. Additionally, Petitioner shall submit

briefing on whether Petitioner should be excused from the statute of limitations on the grounds of

actual innocence.

Order

1) Petitioner shall submit additional briefing on the statue of limitations issue within

THIRTY (30) days of the date of this order; and

2) Respondent shall submit a response to Petitioner’s brief within THIRTY (30) days of

receipt of Petitioner’s brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010 /s/ John M. Dixon 

hkh80h UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 70 Filed 03/04/10 Page 4 of 4