UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION
April 30, 2012
JAVIER MALDONADO PEREZ, PETITIONER,
CONNIE GIBSON, WARDEN,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret M. Morrow United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court has reviewed the entire record in this action, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and petitioner's objections. The Court accepts the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations contained in the Report after having made a de novo determination of the portions to which objections were directed.
The Court notes that, despite a clear description in the Report and Recommendation of the type of showing required to demonstrate that a mental impairment made it impossible for petitioner to file a timely federal habeas petition, petitioner's objections do not make such a showing or satisfy the applicable legal standard. Rather, petitioner refers in conclusory fashion to "mental incompetence," a "mental disorder that renders him void of any ability to comprehend simple ideas, processes, values, or even how to sustain a procedure once it is started," and to a "severe mental impairment." Nowhere does petitioner describe his alleged mental impairment or provide any evidence that it has been diagnosed or exists. Nor does he satisfy the second prong of the test set forth in Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010), by showing that he was diligent to extent he could understand his claims and that his mental impairment made it impossible for him to meet the filing deadline under the totality of the circumstances, including reasonably available access to assistance.
Consequently, the court adopts the recommendation that the petition be dismissed as untimely.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.