Frederick Jerome Morman v. Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 2:2016cv01437 - Document 31 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 23 . Because the Petition is time barred for the reasons stated in the R. & R., IT IS ORDERED that it is denied, Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for details) 12 (bem)

Download PDF

Frederick Jerome Morman v. Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FREDERICK JEROME MORMAN, 10 Petitioner, 11 v. 12 13 DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 14 15 Respondent. ) Case No. CV 16-1437-BRO (JPR) ) ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) ) ) ) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 16 Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S. 17 Magistrate Judge. On February 16, 2017, Petitioner filed 18 objections to the R. & R., in which he mostly argues that the 19 Magistrate Judge and this Court are biased against him.1 20 Although Petitioner does not directly address the Magistrate 21 Judge’s conclusion that the Petition is time barred, he does 22 attach to the objections numerous records concerning his mental 23 health. But as noted in the R. & R., during the relevant period 24 Petitioner had the assistance of an inmate helper (R. & R. at 2025 21), who continues to litigate the Petition for him (including by 26 27 28 1 On February 28, 2017, the Court construed the objections to include a motion to disqualify both judges, and it was referred to the Honorable S. James Otero, U.S. District Judge, for decision. That same day, he denied the objections “to the extent premised on allegations . . . of bias.” Thus, the Court does not address that aspect of the objections. Dockets.Justia.com 1 preparing and filing the objections (see Objs. at 1)). In any 2 event, the newly submitted medical records show that Petitioner 3 has at all relevant times had only mild mental-health issues: his 4 GAF score has almost always been in the 60s2 (see, e.g,, Objs. at 5 38 (GAF score of 65 in Sept. 2014), 65 (same in Dec. 2014), 92 6 (62 in Sept. 2015), 84 (62 in Apr. 2016)); his thought processes 7 have remained “logical” and “linear” and “relevant to the topic 8 of discussion” (see, e.g., id. at 30, 38, 63, 66, 131, 155); and 9 he has always been able to communicate effectively (see, e.g., 10 id. at 65, 69, 156). The medical records only confirm the 11 Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he is not entitled to 12 equitable tolling based on any mental-health issues. (See R. & 13 R. at 19-21.) 14 Finally, Petitioner objects to what he contends are two 15 factual mistakes made by the Magistrate Judge. First, he seems 16 to insist that he filed his “Verified Accusation” “in March 2015 17 [NOT] December 2, 2015 as the Magistrate Judge set out.” 18 at 2.) (Objs. But the proof of service for that document is signed and 19 dated December 2, 2015, and the document itself refers to events 20 that happened after March 2015. (See Lodged Doc. 8 at 2, 6-8.)3 21 He also asserts that he “did not admit to not filing his own 22 Notice of Appeal” (Objs. at 20), as the Magistrate Judge stated 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 GAF scores of between 61 and 70 indicate “some mild symptoms (e.g., depressed mood and some insomnia) OR some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning . . . but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships.” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 34 (revised 4th ed. 2000). 3 For this document the Court uses the pagination provided by its Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 2 1 (see R. & R. at 3). But Petitioner’s claims in the Petition rest 2 on his attorney’s not filing a notice of appeal for him, which 3 would not have prejudiced him had he filed his own. 4 Because the Petition is time barred for the reasons stated 5 in the R. & R., IT IS ORDERED that it is denied, Respondent’s 6 motion to dismiss is granted, and Judgment be entered dismissing 7 this action with prejudice. 8 9 DATED: March 9, 2017 10 BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.