(HC) Gomes Reynaldo v. Arnold
2:15-cv-02182
E.D. Cal.Oct 19, 2016Background
- Petitioner Alfonso Gomes Reynaldo, a state prisoner, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 in the Eastern District of California.
- Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on June 2, 2016 on grounds of untimeliness and failure to exhaust state remedies.
- The court ordered show cause on August 15, 2016, regarding petitioner's response to the motion; extensions were sought and granted.
- Petitioner filed a response prior to the court's findings and recommendations, leading the court to withdraw those findings and consider the response.
- Petitioner moved for stay and abeyance to allow exhaustion in state court, noting potential futility if the filing deadline has expired.
- The court discussed the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations, tolling under §2244(d)(2), and the standards for equitable tolling, and indicated a final opportunity for petitioner to oppose the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the petition time-barred under AEDPA §2244(d)? | Reynaldo contends tolling may apply due to state proceedings. | Arnold maintains untimeliness and exhaustion issues bar relief. | No final ruling; court notes tolling and sets a deadline for opposition. |
| Whether a stay and abeyance to exhaust state remedies is appropriate. | Petitioner seeks stay to exhaust; argues equitable considerations may allow this. | Respondent argues stay would be futile if time-barred. | No stay granted yet; court will decide after opposition. |
| What procedural steps are required to address the statute of limitations issues. | Petitioner must oppose timely to avoid dismissal. | Respondent relies on timely opposition to arguments about timeliness. | Court to receive a timely opposition within 30 days; failure may lead to dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requiring diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (standard for equitable tolling in AEDPA context)
- Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2010) (properly filed state post-conviction tolls AEDPA clock)
- Waldron–Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2009) (external force required for extraordinary circumstances)
- Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (extraordinary circumstances beyond ordinary negligence)