United States District Court, C.D. California
January 16, 2015
TAVARES COTLAND SCOTT, Petitioner,
A. HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge found that all but one of the grounds in the petition were untimely and addressed the timely ground on the merits.
With respect to equitable tolling, Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge's statement that he "has not submitted evidence that he had no access to the library or that he made requests for library access and was denied. (Objections at 1; see also Report at 11.) Petitioner argues he "made numerous requests" for legal materials. ( Id. at 1-2 & Exs. A-E.) The attached exhibits do not support Petitioner's contention that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he did not have access to the law library. All of the exhibits are "Legal Materials Request[s]" in which he requested, for example, the Federal Rules of Evidence (Ex. B), as well as requests for legal advice: "What does it mean to state a prima facie factual case supporting the Petitioner's release" (Ex. C). Petitioner has still not presented any evidence that he requested access to the law library and was denied.
Moreover, Petitioner was not impeded by any alleged lack of success in his requests for materials as he filed multiple habeas petitions to the state courts during the same time frame. (Report at 3 (habeas petition in the Riverside Superior Court on April 12, 2010; habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal on September 3, 2010; habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on October 27, 2010).) All of these petitions were filed or pending a ruling during the period covered by four of Petitioner's requests for legal materials. (Objections, Ex. B (April 27, 2010), Ex. C (April 27, 2010), Ex. D (October 20, 2010), Ex. E (December 2, 2010).)
Petitioner's objection regarding equitable tolling is OVERRULED. His remaining objections have no merit.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice.