Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05819/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05819-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Knowles
Respondent
Tommy Ray Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 26, 2003, Petitioner filed his written consent to 

the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 3). On September 2, 2003, Respondent 

filed his consent. (Doc. 7).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on June 16, 2003. (Doc. 1). Since that time, the case has had a 

long and complicated procedural history, including several motions to dismiss for untimeliness, 

several grants of those motions, several dismissals, and several appeals, which have resulted in the 

return of this case to the district court. Of immediate concern is the most recent order from the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part 

and reversed in part the district court’s prior dismissal of the petition as being in violation of the oneyear limitation period contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Doc. 89). The Ninth Circuit upheld the 

TOMMY RAY WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner,

v.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:03-cv-05819-JLT

ORDER ESTABLISHING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

FOR PARTIES TO ADDRESS TIMELINESS 

ISSUE

FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 91 Filed 11/19/13 Page 1 of 2
2

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

district court’s conclusion that the one-year period had expired by the time the petition was filed. 

However, during the pendency of the appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided McQuiggin v. 

Perkins, __U.S.__, 133 S.Ct. 1925 (2013), which held that an actual innocence exception to the oneyear limitation period existed. The Ninth Circuit therefore remanded the case to this Court for “a 

determination of whether [Petitioner’s] actual innocence claim meets the standard set forth in 

McQuiggin so that he is entitled to an exception to the expiration of the AEDPA statute of 

limitations.” (Doc. 89). 

Although the parties have already addressed the issue of actual innocence, those briefs were 

filed prior to the decision in McQuiggin. Accordingly, the Court will require that the parties submit 

simultaneous briefs addressing the question stated above, i.e., whether Petitioner’s actual innocence 

claim meets the McQuiggin standard such that he is entitled to an exception to the expiration of the 

AEDPA’s one-year limitation period. After the filing of the initial simultaneous briefs, the parties will 

be permitted fifteen days within which to file a reply to the other party’s opening brief.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Within 45 days of the date of service of this order, simultaneously, Petitioner and 

Respondent SHALL file opening briefs addressing whether, pursuant to McQuiggin,

Petitioner is entitled to an actual innocence exception to the one-year limitation period. 

2. Within 15 days of the filing of the opening briefs, each party may file a reply brief 

responding to the arguments raised in the opening brief of the other party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 91 Filed 11/19/13 Page 2 of 2