Rosiles v. Pfeiffer, 2:17-cv-2600-KJM GGH. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181204789
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner appears pro se in this habeas corpus proceeding. On October 1, 2018 this court issued Findings and Recommendations in which it was recommended that the petition in this matter be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(1). ECF No. 20. On November 16, 2018 petitioner filed objections to the recommendation claiming he was entitled to equitable tol
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner appears pro se in this habeas corpus proceeding. On October 1, 2018 this court issued Findings and Recommendations in which it was recommended that the petition in this matter be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(1). ECF No. 20. On November 16, 2018 petitioner filed objections to the recommendation claiming he was entitled to equitable toll..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner appears pro se in this habeas corpus proceeding. On October 1, 2018 this court issued Findings and Recommendations in which it was recommended that the petition in this matter be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(1). ECF No. 20. On November 16, 2018 petitioner filed objections to the recommendation claiming he was entitled to equitable tolling based on facts laid out in those objections.
The undersigned has reviewed the objections and, while recognizing that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating his entitlement as they are set out in Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 640 (2010), and that petitioner should have set forth such facts earlier, also recognizes that petitioner has now pleaded facts that indicate the equitable tolling issue should be fully litigated. Thus, the undersigned will withdraw his earlier Findings and Recommendations to permit respondent to formally oppose petitioner's request for equitable tolling.
In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent shall file any opposition he desires within 30 days of the date of this Order.
2. Petitioner shall have 20 days from the date any opposition is served to reply to that opposition.
3. ECF 20 is withdrawn subject to reinstatement/modification after full litigation on the equitable tolling issue.
Source: Leagle
