Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00527/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00527-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMOUS D. NETTLES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0527 GEB JFM P

vs.

A. A. LAMARQUE, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims his due process rights were

violated in connection with a prison rules violation hearing on May 9, 1997, which resulted in a

disciplinary violation and a one-year sentence in the secure housing unit and the loss of time

credits. Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the undersigned will

recommend that petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief be dismissed as untimely.

I. Timeliness of Petition

In the answer to the petition respondent argues that the instant petition is barred

by the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This court agrees that the petition

is untimely and will recommend that it be dismissed.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00527-GEB-PAN Document 46 Filed 04/21/06 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

2

A. Statute of Limitations and Tolling Provision Under the AEDPA

Because this action was filed after April 26, 1996, the provisions of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) are applicable. See Lindh

v.Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The AEDPA imposed a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of federal habeas petitions. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244 provides as follows:

(d) (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application

for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in cu stody pursuant to the 1

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;

(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.

 (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward

any period of limitation under this subsection. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

In an earlier order in this case, the court noted that the statute of limitations

contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) might not apply to this action because petitioner is

challenging a prison rules violation determination and not a state court judgment. See order filed

February 27, 2004. However, subsequent to that order the United States Court of Appeals for the

Case 2:02-cv-00527-GEB-PAN Document 46 Filed 04/21/06 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

3

Ninth Circuit held that the AEDPA one-year limitation period applies to all habeas petitions filed

by persons in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, even if the petition challenges a

pertinent administrative decision rather than a state court judgment. Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d

1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding). See also White v.

Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive

vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment,

even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court conviction). Accordingly,

the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations applies to this case.

B. Factual Background

For purposes of statute of limitations analysis, the relevant chronology of this case

is as follows:

1. After a May 9, 1997 hearing, petitioner was convicted of a disciplinary

violation. (Answer, Ex. D.) 

2. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal of his disciplinary conviction, which

was denied by the second level of review in a written decision and returned to petitioner on May

20, 1998. (Answer, Ex. H.) 

3. Petitioner did not seek the highest level of administrative review. (Answer,

Ex. G.) 

4. On May 25, 2000, petitioner filed a civil action in this court, in case No. CIV

S-00-1158 GEB GGH P, alleging that his due process rights were violated in connection with the

disciplinary action at issue in the instant habeas petition. See Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. Cal. 1978) (judicial notice may be taken of court records), aff’d, 645

F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981). That action was dismissed with leave to amend on May 24, 2001. The

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00527-GEB-PAN Document 46 Filed 04/21/06 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

 Petitioner previously filed a civil rights action in this court in 1996, in case No. CIV S- 1

96-2194 DFL JFM P. However, that action was filed prior to the disciplinary conviction

challenged here and does not affect the statute of limitations analysis in this case. 

 In light of this court’s recommendation that the petition be dismissed as untimely, the 2

court will not reach petitioner’s substantive claims or respondent’s arguments that the petition is

4

 action was later dismissed with prejudice pursuant to petitioner’s request by order dated August

6, 2001. 

1

5. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Superior

Court on June 28, 2001. (Answer, Ex. J.) That petition was denied by order dated July 27, 2001. 

(Id.) 

6. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed March 13, 2002.

C. Analysis

In this case, the limitations period begins to run pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(D), on “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” Shelby, 391 F.3d at 1066. 

Petitioner could have discovered the factual predicate of his claim when his administrative

appeal of the disciplinary finding was rejected and returned to him on May 20, 1998. 

Accordingly, the statute of limitations commenced to run on May 21, 1998. Redd v. McGrath,

343 F.3d 1077, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Petitioner’s next filing occurred on May 25, 2000, when petitioner filed a civil

action in this court. Even assuming arguendo that this filing was eligible to toll the statute of

limitations, the one year period allowed by AEDPA had already run. Petitioner’s federal habeas

corpus petition was received for filing in this court on March 13, 2002, well after the one-year

period of limitation had run. Petitioner does not claim entitlement to equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations and there is no basis for such a finding in the record before this court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for

a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as untimely.2

Case 2:02-cv-00527-GEB-PAN Document 46 Filed 04/21/06 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 unexhausted and procedurally barred. 

5

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 fourteen

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

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: April 20, 2006.

008:nettles527.hc

Case 2:02-cv-00527-GEB-PAN Document 46 Filed 04/21/06 Page 5 of 5