Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02514/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02514-1/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL ESCALANTE, 

Petitioner,

Case No. 3:15-cv-02514-JAH-NLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 13]

AND GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 9]

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary,

Respondent.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Angel Escalante, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, originally filed his

federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 12, 2015 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Doc. No. 1. In his Petition, Escalante alleges that he was erroneously denied relief

to file a petition for review by the California Supreme Court in violation of his Fourteenth

and Sixth Amendment rights. Id. at pgs. 9-11. Specifically, Petitioner contends the

California Supreme Court violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by

barring his Petition on statute of limitations grounds. Id. at pg. 9. Petitioner also contends

his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the Court denied his

motion for a new trial because there was insufficient evidence to convict Petitioner as an

aider and abettor or to find gang-related enhancements. Id. at pg. 10. In addition,

Petitioner claims his rights were violated when the trial court instructed the jury that it

- 1 - 15cv02514

Case 3:15-cv-02514-JAH-NLS Document 16 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 5
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

could convict him under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Id. at pg. 11.

On December 23, 2015 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus Doc. No. 9. The Respondent argues that the petition must be barred

by the statute of limitations and dismissed with prejudice. Id. at pg. 11. Specifically,

Respondent contends the Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling because he did not

properly file for review. Id. at pgs. 12-13. Also, the Respondent asserts that no alternate

start date of Petitioner’s original file date exists because there was no state impediment,

newly recognized constitutional right, or any factual predicate. Id. at pgs. 13-15. In

addition, Respondent argues Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling because he did

not diligently pursue his claims. Id. at pgs. 15-19. Finally, Respondent argues there is no

new evidence sufficient enough to support Petitioner’s actual innocence assertion. Id. at

pgs. 19-22. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to the motion.

On June 2, 2016, the Honorable Nita L. Stormes, United States Magistrate Judge,

issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) addressing the motion and recommending

this Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition and dismiss the Petition

with prejudice. Doc. No. 13 at pg. 14. Objections to the Report were due by June 16,

2016. Ibid. Petitioner filed a letter which the Court construes as an objection to the

Report on August 25, 2016. Doc. No. 14. The letter indicates that lawyers visited

Petitioner to learn about his equitable tolling claims due to his previous attorney’s

conduct. Id. Petitioner was also informed that three other federal petitions exist due to

his former attorney’s negligent conduct. Id.

After careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted and for

the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and

GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court “shall

- 2 - 15cv02514

Case 3:15-cv-02514-JAH-NLS Document 16 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 5
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

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection is

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. The party objecting to the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically

setting forth which of the magistrate judge’s findings the party contests. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b). It is well-settled, under Rule 72(b), that a district court may adopt those

portions of a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided

they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

II. Analysis

a. Statute of Limitations

Judge Stormes found a one year statute of limitations applied to Petitioner’s federal

habeas corpus petition as Petitioner was confined as a result of a state court judgment

pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Doc. No. 13

at pg. 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the limitation period shall run from the

date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review. The Court adopts the magistrate judge’s

finding as it is not clearly erroneous.

b. Commencement of the Statutory Period

Judge Stormes found that the latest start date was the date Escalante’s judgment

became final upon expiration of the time for him to seek such review and no later date

would apply. Doc. No. 13 at pgs. 5-7. Escalante does not raise any claim or assertion that

the State created an impediment to the filing of the Petition, thus no later start date under

§ 2244(d)(1)(B) would apply.

Distinguishing People v. Chiu, 59 Cal. 4th 155 (2014), Judge Stormes clarified that

§ 2244(d)(1)(C) only applies to newly recognized rights that have been retroactively

applied by the United States Supreme Court. Id. at pg. 7. Escalante contends that his start

date is exempt under § 2244(d)(1)(D) due to his counsel’s inactions. Doc. No. 1 at pgs.

1-3. However, the magistrate judge agreed with Respondent that Escalante’s argument

- 3 - 15cv02514

Case 3:15-cv-02514-JAH-NLS Document 16 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 5
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

regarding his private counsel’s inactions is more appropriately analyzed under whether

equitable tolling should apply. Doc. No. 13 at pgs. 7-8. Accordingly, Judge Stormes found

the appropriate start date for analyzing the one-year statute of limitations is the date

Esclante’s judgment became final upon expiration of the time for him to seek review under

§ 2244(d)(1)(A). Id. at pg. 8. The Court finds the Report’s analysis is not clearly

erroneous and adopts the findings of the magistrate judge.

c. Statutory Tolling

Judge Stormes found the Petition untimely as Esclante filed it almost twelve-and-ahalf years after his court of appeal opinion became final. Ibid. Escalante did not file for

review in the California Supreme Court, so statutory tolling would not apply under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Ibid. The court noted that, even if Escalante’s earliest filing date of

February 16, 2012, were used to calculate potential tolling, nearly nine years have passed

from the final judgment date . Ibid; Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 1

2003). Escalante did not file his state habeas corpus petition until January 4, 2015, yet

Petitioner’s untimely petition does not reinitiate the limitations period once it has already

run. Id. at pg. 9. Thus, the magistrate judge found that statutory tolling does not apply

to deem Escalante’s Petition timely. Ibid. The Court finds the Report’s analysis is not

clearly erroneous and adopts the findings of the magistrate judge.

d. Equitable Tolling

Lastly, Judge Stormes found Escalante was entitled to equitable tolling from 2003

through 2010 due to his private counsel’s egregious misconduct. Id. at pgs. 10-11. 

However, the magistrate judge also found Escalante was not diligent in pursuing his rights

after the tolling period. Id. at pg. 12. In addition, the magistrate judge did not find any

extraordinary circumstance restrained Escalante from filing his habeas petitions. Ibid.

Thus, the magistrate judge found there was not sufficient equitable tolling to deem

Escalante’s petition timely. Id. at pg. 13. The Court finds Petitioner’s letter does not alter

the magistrate judge’s analysis as Petitioner was credited seven years due to equitable

The magistrate judge highlighted that it is unclear whether Escalante’s February 16, 2012 filing constituted an

1

application to seek post-conviction relief as Petitioner only sought the return of his case file.

- 4 - 15cv02514

Case 3:15-cv-02514-JAH-NLS Document 16 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 5
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

tolling. Therefore, the Court finds the Report’s analysis is not clearly erroneous and

adopts the findings of the magistrate judge.

e. Equitable Exception Based on An Actual Innocence Claim

Judge Stormes found Escalante did not point to any new, reliable evidence to

consider in support of his claim of actual innocence, and no such evidence is contained

in the Petition. Id. at pgs. 13-14. Thus, the magistrate judge concluded that Escalante

failed to make a sufficient showing to be entitled to such an exception. Id. at pgs. 13-14.

The Court finds the Report’s analysis is not clearly erroneous and adopts the findings of

the magistrate judge.

The court received no objections to the Report. The Court conducted a de novo

review, independently reviewing the Report and all relevant papers submitted by both

parties, and finds the Report provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in the

motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The finding and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the Report

(Doc. No. 13.) are ADOPTED in the entirety;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED;

3. The Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED: September 7, 2016

___________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

- 5 - 15cv02514

Case 3:15-cv-02514-JAH-NLS Document 16 Filed 09/12/16 Page 5 of 5