# Gamboa

> District Court, E.D. California · July 24, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11429994

## Case

- **Full name:** Ulises Chavez v. Martin Gamboa
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** July 24, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11429994

## Opinion text

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-EGC (HC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION
13 v. TO BYPASS THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND PROCEED TO
14 MARTIN GAMBOA, RESOLVING THE MERITS

15 Respondent. (Docs. 53 & 72)

16
17 On February 6, 2023, the Court adopted findings and recommendations to dismiss the
18 Petition as untimely, specifically noting that and the magistrate judge “correctly concluded that
19 equitable tolling is unavailable under the circumstances . . . in part because Petitioner has not
20 shown he acted diligently throughout the limitations period.” (Doc. 21.) The Ninth Circuit
21 reversed, reasoning that:
22 Chavez contends that the district court erred by failing to address his
argument that his IQ of 66, illiteracy, inability to write, and other
23 mental impairments entitle him to equitable tolling. Chavez is
correct. When a party objects to the magistrate judge’s proposed
24 findings and recommendations, the district court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
25 proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court did not address Chavez’s
26 objection, namely that the magistrate judge did not consider whether
equitable tolling is warranted based on his mental impairment. See
27 Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2002).
As currently developed, the record is inadequate to say whether
1 Chavez was diligent in pursuing his claims “to the extent he could
understand them,” but that his “mental impairment made it
2 impossible to meet the filing deadline under the totality of the
circumstances.” [Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir.
3 2010)]; id. at 1001 (remanding for further proceedings when the
record did not address whether the petitioner was diligent in seeking
4 assistance with his claim). “[M]ore factual development is required
before we can say that [Chavez] was or was not precluded from filing
5 his petition by reason of mental impairment.” Laws v. Lamarque, 351
F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2003).
6
Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Chavez’s
7 petition without further development of the record with respect to his
mental impairment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and
8 remand to the district court for further factual development. On
remand, the district court shall order any “discovery, expansion of
9 the record, or evidentiary hearing” necessary to determine whether
Chavez is entitled to equitable tolling based on mental impairment.
10 Id. at 924–25.
11 (Doc. 28.) The Mandate issued June 18, 2025. (Doc. 29.)
12 Throughout the later part of 2025, the parties briefed the mental impairment issue and an
13 evidentiary hearing was set. (Docs. 33–49.) The matter was then reassigned to a new magistrate
14 judge. (Doc. 50.) Shortly thereafter, Respondent Martin Gamboa moved to bypass the statute of
15 limitations Issue and proceed directly to the merits of the pending petition, requesting that the
16 Court (1) permit withdrawal of the pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) without prejudice; (2)
17 vacate the evidentiary hearing currently set for August 4, 2026; (3) accept Respondent’s answer
18 for filing; (4) allow Petitioner a reasonable time to file a traverse; and (5) proceed to resolve the
19 petition on its merits. (Doc. 53.)
20 On July 10, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations,
21 recommending that Respondent’s motion be denied because the “mandate’s directive is
22 unambiguous.” (Doc. 72.) On July 14, 2026, Respondent filed his objections (Doc. 82), and
23 Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. 85).
24 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has performed a de novo review of this
25 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Respondent’s objections and Petitioner’s
26 reply, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and
27 proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 10, 2026 (Doc. 72) are
1 ADOPTED in full.
2 2. Respondent’s motion to bypass the statute of limitations and proceed to resolving the
3 merits (Doc. 53) is DENIED.
4 3. The action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
5
6 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
’ Dated: _July 24, 2026 ears [Tourn
8 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11429994. Public record. Not legal advice.