(HC) Chavez v. Gamboa

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ULISES CHAVEZ, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00920-JLT-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ) 13 v. ) [60-DAY DEADLINE] ) 14 MARTIN GAMBOA, ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Petitioner filed his petition in this Court on July 4, 2022.1 (Doc. 1.) On September 26, 2022, 21 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss contending the petition violated the statute of limitations. (Doc. 22 11.) On November 10, 2022, Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17.) On 23 November 28, 2022, Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner’s opposition. (Doc. 18.) Upon review of 24 the pleadings, on December 1, 2022, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to grant 25 26 1 Although the petition was filed in this Court on July 7, 2022, the petition was dated July 4, 2022. Pursuant to 27 the mailbox rule, a pro se habeas petition is deemed filed on the date of its submission to prison authorities for mailing, as opposed to the date of its receipt by the court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 28 Therefore, under the mailbox rule, the Court deems the petition filed on July 4, 2022, the date Petitioner 1 the motion to dismiss for Petitioner’s failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)’s one-year 2 limitations period, failure to exhaust certain claims, and failure to state a claim as to certain subclaims. 3 (Doc. 19.) Petitioner filed objections on December 27, 2022. (Doc. 20.) On February 6, 2023, the 4 District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations and dismissed the petition as untimely 5 filed. (Doc. 21.) Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 23.) 6 On May 27, 2025, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further factual 7 development of Petitioner’s claim for equitable tolling due to his asserted IQ of 66, illiteracy, inability 8 to write, and other mental impairments. (Doc. 28.) 9 ORDER 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1) Respondent is DIRECTED to brief the issue of Petitioner’s claim for equitable tolling 12 based on his alleged mental impairments within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this 13 order, or in the alternative, concede the issue of timeliness and file an answer to the 14 petition; and 15 2) Petitioner MAY FILE a response to Respondent’s submission within thirty (30) days of its 16 date of service. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: June 23, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28