Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02959/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02959-2/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)

---

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

CECIL JEROME HATCHETT,

Petitioner,

 v.

TERRI GONZALEZ; JOHN SOTO,

Respondents.

/

No. C 15-2959 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Dkt. 16, 20, 21, 23, 29)

INTRODUCTION

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

challenging his sentence 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

The following background is not in dispute: In 2000, petitioner was convicted in

Monterey County Superior Court of sodomy by force, forcible oral copulation, and possession

of a deadly weapon by a prisoner. He was also found to have inflicted great bodily injury, used

a dangerous weapon, and been previously convicted of a serious felony (murder). The

California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case to the trial court for

re-sentencing. The California Supreme Court denied a petition for review on November 14,

2001. The trial court re-sentenced petitioner to a term of 55 years to life in state prison. The

California Court of Appeal modified and affirmed the judgment as modified on May 6, 2003,

and petitioner did not appeal that decision to the California Supreme Court. 

Case 3:15-cv-02959-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Petitioner indicates in his petition that he filed habeas petitions concerning this

conviction in the superior court (case number HC8409), the California Court of Appeal (case

number H042050), and the California Supreme Court (case number S225023) (see Pet. 3-4). 

The docket for Monterey County Superior Court that case number HC8409 was filed on

January 16, 2015. The docket for the California Court of Appeal (Sixth District) indicates that

petition number H042050 filed on March 6, 2015, and denied on May 19, 2015. The docket for

the California Supreme Court indicates that petition number S225023 was filed on March 12,

2015, and denied on May 20, 2015. He then filed the instant federal petition on June 9, 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). 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).

Petitioner’s judgment became final under Section 2244(d)(1)(A) on June 12, 2003 — 40

days after the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment following remand — because

that is when the time to file a petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision expired. See

Cal. R. Ct. 8.264, 8.500(e). The limitations period began running the next day and expired one

year later, on June 13, 2004. Under the “mailbox rule” the instant petition is deemed filed on

the day it was signed — May 20, 2015 — nearly eleven years too late. Petitioner’s first state

habeas petition was filed in January 2015, over ten years after the limitations period had already

expired, and thus his state habeas petitions do not toll the limitations period under Section

Case 3:15-cv-02959-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 4
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

2244(d)(2). See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that once

AEDPA’s limitations period has run, a state habeas petition cannot revive it). 

Petitioner does not argue that he is entitled to equitable tolling, nor are there any

allegations or facts in the papers that suggest equitable tolling is warranted. See Holland v.

Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (equitable tolling is warranted if prisoner shows that he

has been pursuing his rights diligently, and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his

way and prevented timely filing). In addition, the untimeliness of the petition is not excused

based upon “actual innocence,” see Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 2011) (en

banc). He argues that he is factually innocent of his prior convictions for drug possession and

murder, the latter of which was the basis for his five-year sentence enhancement. Even if he

were innocent of murder, he would not be innocent of having been convicted of murder, which

is all that his sentence enhancement required. Petitioner also argues that his petition is timely

because California’s Proposition 47 — which reduced certain drug offenses from felonies to

misdemeanors — is a new law (passed in 2014). He claims that Proposition 47 makes him

innocent of his sentence enhancement for having a prior felony conviction. As noted, however,

his sentence enhancement was based upon his prior conviction for murder, not drug possession

(Resp. Exh. A at 1; Exh. C at 2). Therefore, the passage of Proposition 47 did not affect the

viability of his sentence enhancement, nor did it delay his ability to challenge his sentence

enhancement in a federal habeas petition. 

Petitioner has failed to show any reason to excuse the untimeliness of his petition or

delay the commencement of the limitations period. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to

dismiss the petition as untimely must be granted. In light of this conclusion, petitioner’s

motions for release on bail and for a hearing must be denied as moot. His motion to grant the

writ based on respondent’s failure to prosecute must also be denied because respondent’s

motion to dismiss was a proper response to the order to show cause. Petitioner also filed a

motion to add a new claim (dkt.16) that he is innocent of his sentence enhancement under

Proposition 47. That claim was already raised in the instant petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-02959-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 20) is GRANTED and

the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner’s motions for bail, a hearing, to grant the writ and to add a

new claim are DENIED (dkt. 16, 21, 23, 29).

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: February 8 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02959-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/08/16 Page 4 of 4