Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02379/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02379-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Teresa G. Alegre,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2379 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Gloria Henry, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ

of habeas corpus. She challenges a 1996 murder conviction in San

Joaquin County for which she is serving a sentence of 25 years to

life.

July 7, 2005, respondent moved to the dismiss the petition

as filed outside the time allowed by the statute of limitation. 

A petition for habeas corpus challenging a state conviction

or sentence must be filed within one year from the date on which

the challenged judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 

Case 2:04-cv-02379-FCD-PAN Document 17 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 3
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

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). This limitation period is tolled for the

period during which a “properly filed application” for postconviction or other collateral review is pending in state court. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

Petitioner’s conviction was final June 30, 1998, 90 days

after the California Supreme Court denied her petition for

review. The limitation period then commenced and it expired June

29, 1999, long before petitioner filed her first state habeas

petition November 5, 1999. 

Petitioner opposes dismissal. She argues she is uneducated

and does not read or write English. She complains of the

deficient assistance provided by attorney Richard Dangler, whom

she hired in March 2002 to seek post-conviction relief. Events

related to Dangler occurred long after the limitation period

expired and have no relevance to the present motion. Petitioner

has not established any basis for tolling the limitation period

between June and November of 1999 and respondent is entitled to

dismissal.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends respondent’s July

7, 2005, motion to dismiss be granted and this action be

dismissed as untimely. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 10 days of service of these findings and 

Case 2:04-cv-02379-FCD-PAN Document 17 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 3
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

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02379-FCD-PAN Document 17 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 3