Ulises Chavez v. Martin Gamboa
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ULISES CHAVEZ, No. 1:22-cv-00920-JLT-EGC (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION TO BYPASS THE 13 v. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND PROCEED TO RESOLVING THE 15 Respondent. (Doc. 53) 16 [7-DAY DEADLINE] 17
18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Respondent moves to bypass the statute of limitations issue and proceed directly to the 20 merits of the pending petition, requesting that the Court (1) permit withdrawal of the pending 21 motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) without prejudice; (2) vacate the evidentiary hearing currently set for 22 August 4, 2026; (3) accept Respondent’s answer for filing; (4) allow Petitioner a reasonable time 23 to file a traverse; and (5) proceed to resolve the petition on its merits. (Doc. 53.) Petitioner opposes 24 the motion (Doc. 55), and Respondent has replied (Doc. 56.). Having considered the parties’ 25 briefing, the undersigned recommends that the motion be DENIED, for the reasons set forth below. 26 II. BACKGROUND 27 Following this Court’s dismissal of the petition as untimely, the Ninth Circuit reversed and 28 1 remanded, holding that the district court erred in dismissing the petition “without further 2 development of the record with respect to his mental impairment,” and directing that, on remand, 3 the district court “shall order any discovery, expansion of the record, or evidentiary hearing 4 necessary to determine whether Chavez is entitled to equitable tolling based on mental 5 impairment.” (Doc. 28 at 3.) Consistent with that mandate, the Court set a one-week evidentiary 6 hearing beginning August 4, 2026, to resolve the equitable tolling question. (Doc. 49.) 7 Respondent has since filed an answer addressing the merits of the petition and lodged the 8 remaining state court record. (Docs. 51 & 52.) Respondent now asks the Court to set aside the 9 tolling inquiry, and instead resolve the case on the merits, on the view that this path is more efficient 10 and that the petition plainly fails regardless of timeliness. (Doc. 53 at 2–3.) Petitioner opposes 11 bypass on two grounds: first, that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate forecloses the Court’s discretion to 12 reach the merits before resolving equitable tolling; and second, that even if such discretion exists, 13 bypass is not the more efficient course because Petitioner intends to seek a stay to exhaust claims 14 in state court and amend his petition in light of the recently lodged state record. (Doc. 55 at 2–6.) 16 “A district court that has received the mandate of an appellate court cannot vary or examine 17 that mandate for any purpose other than executing it.” Creech v. Tewalt, 84 F.4th 777, 787 (9th Cir. 18 2023) (citing Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2012)). “[T]he lower court 19 must execute the mandate without hesitation.” U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 20 2000). “‘[B]roadly speaking, mandates require respect for what the higher court decided, not for 21 what it did not decide.’” Id. (citations omitted). 23 The Ninth Circuit’s remand order addressed a single, discrete error: the dismissal of the 24 petition as untimely without further factual development regarding Petitioner’s mental impairment. 25 (Doc. 28 at 3.) The mandate is silent as to the merits of the petition, which were not before the 26 Ninth Circuit on appeal. The mandate “require[s] respect for what the higher court decided, not for 27 what it did not decide.” Kellington, 217 F.3d at 1093. As such, the mandate’s directive is 28 unambiguous as to requiring further development of the record with respect to Petitioner’s mental 1 impairment. Specifically, the mandate instructed the district court to “order any ‘discovery, 2 expansion of the record, or evidentiary hearing’ necessary to determine whether [Petitioner] Chavez 3 is entitled to equitable tolling based on mental impairment.” (Doc. 28 at 3 [citation omitted].) 4 Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, an evidentiary hearing has already been scheduled, 5 and the undersigned finds it appropriate to proceed with that hearing as set. 7 For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 8 1. Respondent’s Motion to Bypass the Statute of Limitations and Proceed to Resolving the 9 Merits (Doc. 53) is DENIED; and, 10 2. The evidentiary hearing set to begin August 4, 2026, remains on calendar. 11 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 13 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 seven (7) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may 15 file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be 16 captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed 17 fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider 18 exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party 19 should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when 20 possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen 21 (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and 22 Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to 23 file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 24 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 25 immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to 26 Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District 27 Court's judgment. 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 3 | Dated: _ July 10, 2026 Cn Un. de 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ulises Chavez v. Martin Gamboa (Ulises Chavez v. Martin Gamboa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.