Simon v. Uribe, No. 3:2009cv05859 - Document 43 (N.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 35 Petitioner's Request for Additional Discovery re Equitable Tolling by Judge Thelton E. Henderson (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2014)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Simon v. Uribe Doc. 43 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MAR-NIQUE SIMON, 5 Petitioner, v. 6 7 DOMINGO URIBE, Case No. 09-cv-05859-TEH ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND VACATING HEARING Respondent. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 I. BACKGROUND Petitioner Mar-nique Simon, a state prisoner, filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of 13 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. December 15, 2009 Petition for a Writ of Habeas 14 Corpus (Docket No. 1). Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition as untimely by over 15 four years under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). March 23, 2010 Motion to Dismiss (Docket 16 No. 5). Petitioner submitted a preliminary mental health report dated August 14, 2006, 17 which identified the possibility that Petitioner was mentally impaired. April 14, 2010 18 Response to Motion to Dismiss, Ex. B (Docket No. 6-1). Despite this preliminary report, 19 the Court subsequently granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss, finding that Petitioner 20 was not entitled to equitable tolling based on mental impairment. March 9, 2011 Order 21 Granting Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 10). Petitioner appealed and, on June 21, 2013, 22 the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision reversing and remanding on the issue of 23 equitable tolling. June 21, 2013 Memorandum (Docket No. 18). In the memorandum, the 24 Ninth Circuit instructed this Court to “order any discovery, expansion of the record, or 25 evidentiary hearing necessary to determine whether Simon is entitled to equitable tolling 26 based on mental impairment.” 27 28 Accordingly, the Court initially ordered that the Petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if he is entitled to equitable tolling based on a mental Dockets.Justia.com 1 impairment. August 20, 2013 Order After Remand (Docket No. 21). However, the parties 2 agreed that an evidentiary hearing at that time would be “premature,” and that the Court 3 should review Petitioner’s prison medical records with input from the parties. October 28, 4 2013 Joint Case Management Statement (Docket No. 24). The parties further agreed that 5 if the Court could determine from the records alone that the Petitioner is entitled to 6 equitable tolling due to mental incompetence, then an evidentiary hearing would be 7 unnecessary. The parties disagreed, however, on whether the court could make a contrary 8 finding on the medical records alone. 9 On November 4, 2013, this Court held a Case Management Conference in which it determined that an evidentiary hearing was premature and continued the Case 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Management Conference to December 16, 2013, to allow Petitioner to obtain his prison 12 medical records. November 5, 2013 Case Management Conference Minutes (Docket No. 13 25). Due to various difficulties (see Docket No. 26, 29), Petitioner’s prison records were 14 not available to the parties until late April 2014. April 21, 2014 Joint Case Management 15 Statement (Docket No. 32). 16 On June 19, 2014, the parties filed opening briefs addressing the impact of 17 Petitioner’s prison mental health records on his claim for equitable tolling. June 19, 2014 18 Respondent’s Opening Brief Addressing the Impact of Petitioner’s Prison Mental Health 19 Records (Docket No. 34); June 19, 2014 Petitioner’s Brief Re: Status of Factual 20 Development, Including Analysis of Medical Records (Docket No. 35). Petitioner’s 21 opening brief questioned the completeness of the prison medical records received from the 22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and requested leave to 23 conduct additional discovery. June 19, 2014 Petitioner’s Brief Re: Status of Factual 24 Development, Including Analysis of Medical Records at 7, 15-16 (Docket No. 35). 25 After carefully considering the submissions of both parties, the Court finds further 26 argument to be unnecessary and now GRANTS Petitioner’s request to conduct additional 27 discovery. Accordingly, the Court also VACATES the hearing on this matter scheduled 28 for September 29, 2014. 2 1 II. DISCUSSION The Ninth Circuit has noted that where there is an “amply developed record,” there 3 is no need for an evidentiary hearing. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 772-73 (9th Cir. 4 2010). Because district courts have limited resources, to require them to conduct further 5 evidentiary hearings when there is already “sufficient evidence in the record to make the 6 relevant determination is needlessly wasteful.” Id. at 773. See also Porter v. Horel, 455 7 Fed.App’x. 757, 758 (9th Cir. 2011) (determining mental competency for the purpose of 8 equitable tolling on the basis of “extensive medical evidence in the record” without an 9 evidentiary hearing); Uhuru v. Brown, 413 Fed.App’x. 962, 963 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); 10 Campostrini v. Tilton, 407 Fed.App’x. 167, 168 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). However, absent 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 an adequately developed factual record, the court cannot make a determination of a 12 petitioner’s entitlement to equitable tolling. Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th 13 Cir. 2003). In fact, a court may dismiss a claim for equitable tolling only where a 14 sufficiently developed record includes “countervailing evidence” to rebut a petitioner’s 15 claim of mental impairment. Id. 16 In an analogous case to the one now before this Court, the district court in Biagas v. 17 Walker initially denied a motion to dismiss a habeas petition as time barred because the 18 record was “not sufficiently developed for consideration because it lack[ed] Petitioner’s 19 complete medical reports relating to his mental impairment from the start of the limitations 20 period . . . through the filing date of his federal petition . . .” 2012 WL 1094433, C 10- 21 2429 at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2012). See also Chick v. Chavez, 518 F.App’x 567, 569 (9th Cir. 22 2013) (remanding case to district court for further factual development as the record 23 contained no medical evidence from the time period at issue, and respondent had not 24 offered “sufficient countervailing evidence to demonstrate that [petitioner] was mentally 25 competent during the tolling period”) (emphasis added). 26 Respondent is correct that the Court is entitled to rule on the underlying request for 27 equitable tolling based on mental impairment without conducting an evidentiary hearing. 28 However, the Court may only take such action if the record is “amply developed” such that 3 1 an evidentiary hearing can be fairly considered “needlessly wasteful.” See Roberts, 627 2 F.3d at 773. This cannot be said for the present case. Here, as in Biagas, the record before 3 the Court is “not sufficiently developed” because it “lacks Petitioner’s complete medical 4 reports relating to his mental impairment from the start of the limitations period . . . 5 through the filing date of his federal petition . . .” Biagas, 2012 WL 1094433 at *7. 6 Further, the medical records fail to sufficiently assess Petitioner’s cognitive functioning or 7 potential mental retardation. Indeed, Petitioner has adequately illustrated the repeated 8 deferral of any full evaluation of Petitioner’s cognitive capabilities by physicians in the 9 2011-2014 medical records. July 3, 2014 Petitioner’s Answering Brief to Attorney 10 General’s Opening Brief at 7-8 (Docket No. 39). While Respondent has identified a number of places within the factual record that United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 call into question the legitimacy of Petitioner’s claim of mental impairment, a final 13 determination of this matter remains premature absent further opportunity for Petitioner to 14 assess the availability of additional medical records and to pursue the information 15 recommended in Dr. Young’s report. Consequently, the Court cannot presently make a 16 determination regarding Petitioner’s request for equitable tolling based upon the factual 17 record as currently developed. However, additional development of the factual record as 18 requested by Petitioner and described below may ultimately render an evidentiary hearing 19 unnecessary. 20 21 22 23 24 III. CONCLUSION In order to facilitate the development of an adequate factual record, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to conduct additional discovery as follows: 1. Obtain from Dr. Young’s executor the testing data underlying her 2006 25 psychological evaluation of Petitioner, as well as any interviews that may have been 26 conducted as a result of that evaluation. 27 28 4 1 2. Locate and interview Petitioner’s family and peers to obtain a social history 2 describing Petitioner’s functioning between May 1, 2004 and December 15, 2009 3 (the relevant tolling period). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 3. Obtain Petitioner’s school records to determine the extent of Petitioner’s formal education as well as his intellectual capabilities. 4. Obtain a more recent neuropsychological evaluation of Petitioner to determine if there exist any issues related to intellectual or cognitive impairment. 5. Obtain any cognitive, educational, or vocational test scores relating to Petitioner from CDCR. 6. Obtain any CDCR Disability and Effective Communication System records relating to Petitioner. 7. Obtain a complete set of prison medical records from CDCR and the California Youth Authority. 8. Access Petitioner’s Central File for any information relating to his cognitive functioning. 16 Particular emphasis should be placed upon discovering information relating to the nature 17 and extent of Petitioner’s mental impairment during the relevant tolling period of May 1, 18 2004 to December 15, 2009. 19 Importantly, while the Court grants Petitioner leave to discover this additional 20 information, the development of a sufficient factual record is not dependent upon the 21 successful investigation of all of these sources of information. Depending upon the nature 22 of the facts discovered, the Court might be able to make a determination regarding 23 Petitioner’s request for equitable tolling before the above sources can be fully explored. 24 Consequently, Petitioner’s counsel is encouraged to work quickly and diligently to develop 25 the record in accordance with the Court’s order. 26 It is FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of this order, Petitioner and 27 Respondent will meet and confer and file a joint Case Management Statement offering 28 their joint or separate views as to how much discovery has taken place and how much 5 1 more time will be needed to finish. The need for an evidentiary hearing and/or additional 2 discovery will be reassessed at that time. 3 4 Accordingly, the hearing previously scheduled on this matter for September 29, 2014 is VACATED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: 9/4/2014 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
