Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03640/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03640-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHON DEON JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

MARTIN BITER,

Respondent.

/

No. C 15-3640 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Dkt. 11)

INTRODUCTION

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. 2254

challenging his conviction in state court. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition

as untimely. Petitioner has filed an opposition and respondent has filed a reply brief. The

motion is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.

STATEMENT

On March 19, 2010, petitioner and a co-defendant were convicted in Alameda County

Superior Court of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder (Pet.

Br. 1). On June 4, 2010, petitioner was sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of

parole in state prison (ibid.). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction on June

27, 2013 (Pet. Appendix C), and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review on

October 2, 2013 (Resp. Exh. 1). On April 16, 2014, petitioner gave his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus to prison officials for mailing to the Alameda County Superior Court, and it was

filed in that court on May 7, 2014 (id. Exh. 2; Opp. 2). On June 20, 2014, the petition was

denied as untimely and without merit (Resp. Exh. 3). On July 10, 2014, petitioner filed a

Case 3:15-cv-03640-WHA Document 18 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, which was denied four days later summarily

and without citation (id. Exh. 4). ON August 18, 2014, petitioner filed a habeas petition in the

California Supreme Court (id. Exh. 5). He received leave to amend the petition and filed an

amended the petition on January 12, 2015 (id. Exh. 6; Opp. 2). The California Supreme Court

denied relief, with the only explanation a citation to In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 (1998)

(Resp. Exh. 7). The instant petition was filed on August 10, 2015. 

ANALYSIS

The statute of limitations is codified at 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). Petitions filed by prisoners

challenging non-capital state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest

of the date on which: (A) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the

time passed for seeking direct review; (B) an impediment to filing an application created by

unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (C)

the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (D) the

factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). 

Under Section 2244(d)(1)(A), the time for seeking direct review includes the period in

which a petition may file a petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme

Court, whether or not such a petition is actually filed. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3dd 1157, 1159 (9th

Cir. 1999). Petitioner did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. His time for

doing so expired 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. See

Sup. Ct. R. 13. 8.500(e). The California Supreme Court denied review on October 2, 2013,

and the deadline for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari expired on December 31, 2013. 

Therefore, under Section 2244(d)(1)(A) the judgment became “final” and the one-year

limitations period started on December 31, 2013. The limitations period began running the next

day and expired one year later, on January 1, 2015.

Under the “mailbox rule” a federal petition may be deemed filed on the date it was

handed to prison authorities for mailing, and not on the date it was actually filed. 

Case 3:15-cv-03640-WHA Document 18 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Here, however, there is no evidence as to when

the petition was handed to prison officials for mailing: there is no proof of service attached to

the petition, and petitioner does not state when he handed it to prison officials. The date

petitioner signed the petition can logically be presumed to be the date he handed it to prison

officials for mailing. The instant petition is signed and dated “July 2015”. For the purposes of

analyzing this motion, the instant petition will be deemed filed under the mailbox rule on July 1,

2015, because that is the earliest date that it could have been signed and delivered to prison

officials for mailing. As the limitations period expired six months earlier, on January 1, 2015, it

is untimely absent tolling. 

Time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral review is pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2). 

For a state post-conviction to be “pending” and “properly filed” within the meaning of Section

2244(d)(2), it must be timely under state law. See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 226 (2002);

see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005). In California, a state habeas petition

is untimely if there has been an unreasonable delay. Carey, 536 U.S. at 226. The Alameda

County Superior Court found petitioner’s first state post-conviction to be untimely. If a

California state court rules that the petition is untimely, “that is the end of the matter” for

purposes of Section 2244(d)(2) tolling. Ibid. The fact that the Alameda County Superior Court

also denied the petition on its merits does not change this conclusion. See ibid. (if the state

court denies the petition as untimely, there is no tolling under Section 2244(d)(2) regardless of

whether the state court also addressed the merits of the claims). It is noted that the superior

court could reasonably find that the petition was unreasonably delayed because while it was

filed was filed 106 days after the federal statute of limitations period began, more than six

months had elapsed since petitioner lost his final direct appeal to the California Supreme Court

and nearly four years had elapsed since his conviction and sentence. In any event, the superior

court’s finding that the petition was untimely conclusively precludes tolling under Section

2244(d)(2) while the petition was pending.

Petitioner’s two subsequent state habeas petitions also do not toll the limitations period

Case 3:15-cv-03640-WHA Document 18 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

under Section 2244(d)(2). When a higher court in California denies the petition summarily —

as the California Court of Appeal did in this case — it is presumed that the higher court agreed

with the lower court’s determination on the timeliness question unless “strong evidence” rebuts

this presumption. Curiel v. Miller, 780 F.3d 1201, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 2015). The California

Court of Appeal’s summary denial is therefore presumed to be in agreement with the Alameda

County Superior Court’s decision that the petition was untimely, and there is no evidence to

rebut this presumption. Cf. id. at 1204 (finding that citations to other California decisions in

summary opinion was not “strong evidence” that overcomes presumption that California

Supreme Court’s summary denial signaled agreement with superior court’s determination that

petition was untimely). The California Supreme Court’s denial of the habeas petition is also

considered a denial on untimeliness grounds because of the Supreme Court cited In re Robbins,

18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (Cal. 1998). Thorson v. Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2007)

(California court's citation to In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (Cal. 1998), is a clear ruling

that the petition was untimely, and the petition does not toll the limitations period under Section

2244(d)(2)). Under Curiel and Thorson, therefore, the habeas petitions to the California Court

of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California were denied as untimely and do not toll the

limitations period under Section 2244(d)(2). 

Petitioner does not argue that he is entitled to equitable tolling, but it is nevertheless

noted that there are no grounds for equitable tolling here. “[A] 'petitioner' is 'entitled to

equitable tolling' only if he shows '(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2)

that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' and prevented timely filing.” Holland v.

Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting Pace, 544 U.S. at 418). Petitioner argues that he

did not know that his superior court petition would be untimely. If he did not know that his

superior court petition would be untimely when he filed it, he was so informed when the

petition was denied. At that time, time he still had approximately three months left of the

AEDPA limitations period in which to file a protective petition in federal court. Prisoners may

avoid the risk of having the federal statute of limitations expire while they are exhausting their

state remedies “by filing a 'protective' petition in federal court and asking the federal court to

Case 3:15-cv-03640-WHA Document 18 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted.” Pace, 544

U.S. at 416 (citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005)). Indeed, the failure to do so in

some circumstances may be considered a lack of diligence by a petitioner so as to preclude

equitable tolling. Curiel, 780 F.3d at 1205-06. Petitioner has not shown any reason he could

not have filed a protective habeas petition after his superior court petition was denied. 

Moreover, there are simply no extraordinary circumstances that impeded his filing a timely

petition. The federal exhaustion requirement and the rules governing the timeliness of state

court habeas petitions are far from extraordinary insofar as they apply to every California

prisoner who seeks post-conviction habeas relief. Accordingly, there are no grounds for

equitable tolling apparent from the record in this case. 

Because the instant petition was filed approximately six months after the one-year

statute of limitations expired, and there are no grounds for statutory or equitable tolling, it must

be dismissed as untimely. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 11) is GRANTED and

the petition is DISMISSED.

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to

rule on whether a petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in

which the petition is denied. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that a

reasonable jurist would find the dismissal of his petition debatable or wrong. Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted

in this case.

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-03640-WHA Document 18 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 5