Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02315/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02315-5/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

 The page numbers identified in petitioner’s habeas petition are those assigned by the 1

court’s electronic docketing system.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-08-2315 GEB KJM P 

vs.

M. MARTEL, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, filed on April 25, 2008, petitioner

challenges the fact that he was denied parole on November 29, 2006. Am. Pet. at 12, 62.1

Respondent has filed a motion arguing this matter should be dismissed as time-barred.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) provides as follows:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ

of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment

of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such

review;

Case 2:08-cv-02315-TJH Document 31 Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 4
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

 The court recognizes that petitioner has filed an unsigned request asking that the court

2

take judicial notice of the decision reached in Redd v. McGrath cited above. Even as the court

references federal case law, it does not ordinarily take “judicial notice” of that case law. See Fed.

R. Evid. 201. There is no reason to do so here.

2

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from

filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Respondent argues this action is time-barred because the limitations period ran

between two periods of time: from the day after parole was denied, November 30, 2006, through

the date petitioner initiated state court review on July 27, 2007, and then from the date state court

review was completed on October 29, 2008 through petitioner’s filing of his amended petition in

this court on March 21, 2009. Mot. at 3-4. 

Respondent correctly notes that, with respect to parole cases, the limitations

period generally commences when the conditions in § 2244(d)(1)(D) have been satisfied. Redd

v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003). Respondent asserts those conditions were 2

satisfied on November 29, 2006 at the conclusion of petitioner’s parole hearing. Mot. at 2:6-17. 

In this respect, respondent is incorrect. Until the decision of the parole board became final on

March 29, 2007, the parole board was free to modify its decision. See Am. Pet. at 141 (final

page of parole board decision noting when decision will be final if not modified). There was no

factual predicate arising from the decision to deny parole until the parole board decision became

final. This conclusion is supported by Redd. There, the Ninth Circuit found that under 

§ 2244(d)(1)(D), the limitations period did not commence immediately after the parole hearing at

Case 2:08-cv-02315-TJH Document 31 Filed 12/16/09 Page 2 of 4
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

3

issue was held, but after the decision to deny parole became final at the conclusion of the

administrative appeal process. See Redd, 343 F.3d at 1082. Since Redd, the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has abolished the administrative appeals process

for challenging parole decisions. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2050 et seq. Nothing in Redd,

however, suggests the date for commencement of the limitations period should now be the day

immediately following the parole hearing, rather than the date California law now indicates the

decision to deny parole is final. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 2041 (a), (b) & 2043 (parole board

decision regarding life prison final “no later than 120 days” after hearing). The limitations period

did not commence until after the decision to deny petitioner parole became final on March 29,

2007.

As respondent concedes, the limitations period then was tolled between July 27,

2007 and October 28, 2008, while petitioner was pursuing his claims in the state courts. 

Assuming without deciding that petitioner’s federal petition was not filed until the amended

petition was filed March 21, 2009, it was filed within 264 days, well within the one year statute

of limitations. 

Respondent has not shown this matter is time-barred. The motion to dismiss

should be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s “request for judicial

notice” (#30) is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (#27) be denied; and 

2. Respondent be ordered to file his answer within forty-five days of any order

denying the motion to dismiss.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:08-cv-02315-TJH Document 31 Filed 12/16/09 Page 3 of 4
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

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 15, 2009.

1

will2315.157

Case 2:08-cv-02315-TJH Document 31 Filed 12/16/09 Page 4 of 4