(HC) Brown v. Yates, No. 2:2005cv01195 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/24/10 recommending that petitioner's 01/08/10 request for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1) hearing and motion for appointment of counsel be denied.' Motion 24 referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Brown v. Yates Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD DON BROWN, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV-S-05-1195 LKK DAD P vs. WARDEN YATES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 5, 2009, findings and recommendations 18 were filed recommending that habeas relief be denied on petitioner’s claims that: (1) he was 19 denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to raise the issue of 20 petitioner’s developmental disability and its impact on his competency to stand trial; (2) the trial 21 court failed to “personally” take a voluntary and intelligent waiver of petitioner’s right to a trial 22 in violation of his due process rights; and (3) he was denied effective assistance of appellate 23 counsel when his attorney on appeal failed to raise potentially meritorious constitutional claims. 24 (Doc. No. 21.) Petitioner did not file objections to those findings and recommendations. On 25 March 31, 2009, the findings and recommendations were adopted, habeas relief was denied, this 26 action was dismissed, and judgment was entered. Petitioner did not file an appeal. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On January 8, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and a request for the appointment of counsel. Therein, petitioner argues 3 that he “should be allowed to file late objections, and he should be appointed legal counsel to do 4 so.” (Mot. for Relief from Judgment at 7.) Petitioner has also filed what appear to be his 5 objections to the March 5, 2009 findings and recommendations. (Id. at 7-16.) Petitioner argues that he was unable to file his objections in a timely manner 6 7 because of “mental incompetency.” (Id. at 4.) He explains that he is in the “prison mental health 8 program” undergoing treatment for “depression AND adjustment disorder with disturbance of 9 mood and conduct; antisocial personality disorder; narcissistic personality disorder; suicidal 10 behavior; hallucinations and past head trauma.”1 (Id. at 5.) Petitioner also informs the court, and 11 provides evidence, that he has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse and suicide attempts, and 12 that he is currently taking “psych medications.” (Id. at 5-6 & Exs. B, C, D, E.) He argues that 13 his “mental incompetency” is a situation beyond his control that prevented him from filing timely 14 objections to the March 5, 2009 findings and recommendations. (Id.) Petitioner also explains that, because he is “not mentally competent to represent 15 16 himself” and does not have counsel, he has had to rely on the help of other inmates. He states 17 that on May 27, 2008, he was transferred from Mule Creek State Prison, where he had been 18 assisted by another inmate, to Salinas Valley State Prison, where he “only recently” obtained the 19 assistance of an inmate to help him with his legal matters. (Mot. at 6.) As noted above, 20 petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel in order to facilitate the filing of objections 21 to the court’s March 5, 2009 findings and recommendations, but has also filed what appear to be 22 his objections to those findings and recommendations. Whatever the precise relief requested by 23 petitioner, for the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that petitioner is not entitled to the 24 25 26 1 On July 23, 2008, petitioner received a “mental health placement chrono” which indicated that he met the criteria for “MHSDS” and that psychotropic medication was prescribed. (Id. at page 52 of 138.) 2 1 appointment of counsel or to reopen this case for the purpose of filing the objections attached to 2 his motion. 3 Respondent filed an opposition to petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment on 4 February 26, 2010. Therein, respondent argues that: (1) he would suffer prejudice if petitioner’s 5 motion is granted because “it would require the reopening of a case, already litigated on the 6 merits, which began in 2005 and has been closed for nearly a full year;” (2) the length of the 7 delay is substantial; (3) the fact that petitioner was unable to find another inmate to help him is 8 not a valid reason for delay; (4) a review of petitioner’s health records reflects that petitioner was 9 mentally stable at the time his objections were due; and (5) petitioner has not acted in good faith 10 because he waited an entire year to file his objections and the objections merely restate his 11 original claims. (Opp’n at 3-4.) 12 “Rule 60(b), like the rest of the Rules of Civil Procedure, applies in habeas corpus 13 proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only ‘to the extent that [it is] not inconsistent with’ 14 applicable federal statutory provisions and rules.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005) 15 (footnote omitted) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 11 & Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2)). Rule 60(b) 16 provides for relief on the following grounds: 17 18 19 20 21 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 22 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Motions seeking such relief are addressed to the sound discretion of the 24 district court. Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). A motion under 25 Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time and, with respect to grounds (1), (2) and (3) 26 set forth above, not more than a year after the entry of judgment or order from which relief is 3 1 being sought. Rule 60(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner’s motion, which is 2 based on Rule 60(b)(1), was filed within one year from the entry of judgment in this case and is 3 therefore timely. Petitioner argues, in essence, that his failure to file timely objections was the 4 5 result of excusable neglect. The determination of whether neglect is excusable “is at bottom an 6 equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission.” 7 Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. 8 Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). To determine when neglect is excusable, a 9 reviewing court must examine four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) 10 the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; 11 and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1192. After a review of the record, this court concludes that petitioner has failed to 12 13 demonstrate a valid reason for his delay in filing objections to the court’s March 5, 2009 findings 14 and recommendations. The medical records submitted by both parties reflect that during the time 15 period permitted for filing of those objections, petitioner’s mental condition was described as 16 “stable,” he had adjusted to prison life after initial difficulties, his thought processes were within 17 normal limits, he was not suffering delusions, he had no suicidal ideation, his intellectual 18 functioning was within normal limits, he was “doing well,” he had “no signs of distress or 19 deterioration,” and he was taking medication to control his symptoms.2 (Mot., Ex. B, 20 consecutive p. 1.) There is no evidence before the court indicating that petitioner was unable to 21 file objections to the findings and recommendations during the relevant period, notwithstanding 22 his long history of mental health problems. For example, petitioner has not alleged how his 23 mental illness or any side effects of his medication rendered him incapable of filing timely 24 25 26 2 In his reply brief, petitioner states that the word “stable,” when used in mental health records, demonstrates only that “petitioner’s mood was stable” and that “treatment has help[ed] and should be continued.” (Reply at consecutive p. 6.) 4 1 objections. See Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding a finding 2 that equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing a federal habeas petition was inapplicable 3 where prisoner failed to show causal connection between physical and mental disabilities and 4 inability to timely file petition), modified on other grounds by, 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 The cases cited by petitioner in support of his argument that his history of mental health issues 6 constituted “excusable neglect” for failing to file timely objections are not on point. See Brown 7 v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that district court abused its discretion by failing to 8 consider petitioner’s claim that the one-year limitations period for filing a federal habeas petition 9 was equitably tolled, which was raised by petitioner for the first time in his objections to the 10 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations); Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 923-24 11 (9th Cir. 2003) (case remanded for a hearing on possible equitable tolling of the limitations 12 period for the filing a federal habeas petition, where the only evidence reflecting petitioner’s 13 mental condition during the relevant period was the petitioner’s unrebutted allegation in his state 14 petition that he was “deprived [ ] of any kind of cons[ci]ousness” in those years”); 15 Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2005) (statute of limitations 16 tolled because petitioner was denied access to his legal materials during the relevant period). On the other hand, respondent would suffer prejudice were the court to reopen this 17 18 case, which was litigated on the merits and has been closed for now more than a year. Further, 19 petitioner’s stated reasons for his delay in filing his objections lack credibility in light of the fact 20 that petitioner diligently and competently pursued this habeas action when it was pending in this 21 court. Even if petitioner enlisted his fellow inmates or jailhouse lawyers to assist him, his own 22 admission to this effect demonstrate that he was capable of understanding and pursuing his legal 23 rights. Further, although petitioner may have been unable to find another inmate to help him file 24 his objections, he has failed to demonstrate that he could not file timely objections on his own 25 ///// 26 ///// 5 1 behalf during the relevant period.3 In sum, petitioner has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect 2 or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment entered in this case.4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s January 8, 2010 3 4 “request for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1) hearing and motion for appointment of counsel” be 5 denied. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 8 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: June 24, 2010. 15 16 17 18 DAD:8 brown1195.60b 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 In the context of equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions, ignorance of the law and pro se status are insufficient to toll the statute. See Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“a pro se petitioner's lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling”); Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 1999) (“neither a plaintiff's unfamiliarity with the legal process nor his lack of representation during the applicable filing period merits equitable tolling”); Sperling v. White, 30 F. Supp.2d 1246, 1254 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (a lack of knowledge of the law is not an “extraordinary circumstance” beyond the petitioner's control sufficient to entitle a petitioner to equitable tolling of the limitations period). 4 Finally, the undersigned has reviewed the objections attached to petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment and concludes that they would not lead to amended recommendations on any of petitioner’s claims even if they were to be considered. 6
]]>
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.
