Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00490/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00490-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA LYNN CHAVEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

GLORIA HENRY, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00490-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 26)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 21)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 3, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 

Recommendations that the motion to dismiss the petition for writ of

habeas corpus be GRANTED, the instant petition be DISMISSED, and

the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. These Findings

and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On August 1, 2006, Petitioner

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 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

In Houston v. Lack, the United States Supreme Court held that a pro se habeas 1

petitioner's notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date of its submission to

prison authorities for mailing, as opposed to the date of its receipt by the court

clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988); Saffold

v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1081, 1097 (9 Cir. 2000) (applying mailbox rule to both

th

federal and state habeas corpus petitions for purposes of the AEDPA). The rule is

premised on the pro se prisoner's mailing of legal documents through the conduit

of "prison authorities whom he cannot control and whose interests might be adverse

to his." Miller v. Sumner, 921 F.2d 202, 203 (9 Cir. 1990); see Houston, 487 U.S. th

at 271, 108 S.Ct. at 2382. 

2

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

Two of the grounds raised in Petitioner's objections deserves

further discussion. In her objections, Petitioner raises the issue

of applying the mailbox rule. Even if the Court applied the 1

mailbox rule to Petitioner's state collateral filings, the instant

petition is still untimely. Applying the mailbox rule to the

analysis set forth in the Findings and Recommendations, would

render the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the Kern

County Superior Court on January 16, 2003, the date it was

apparently submitted to prison officials for mailing, versus

January 28, 2003, the date it was actually filed by the Court. 

(See Respondent's Lodged Doc. 8.) This would subtract 12 days from

the 274 days (i.e. 262) that had run against the limitations period

at the time Petitioner filed the first state collateral petition. 

The next filing was at the Fifth District Court of Appeal on

November 14, 2003, versus November 18, 2003. (See Respondent's

Lodged Doc. 9.) This only adds four days to the analysis, and

therefore does not change the Magistrate's conclusion and analysis

that the delay of 276 (versus 280) between the denial of the Kern

County Superior Court petition and the filing at the Fifth District

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 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

3

was unreasonable. The last filing was at the California Supreme

Court on April 28, 2004, versus May 3, 2004. (See Respondent's

Lodged Doc. 10.) This adds five days to the analysis, and again

does not change or have an affect on the Magistrate's conclusion

and analysis that the delay of 139 (versus 144) between denial by

the Fifth District Court of Appeal to filing at the California

Supreme Court was unreasonable. 

Petitioner further contends that on February 5, 2003, in the

Kern County Superior Court, she filed a "motion to backdate the

filing date" of her state habeas corpus. (Objections, at 10.) The

motion was denied by the Superior Court on March 16, 2003; however,

Petitioner contends that she did not receive a copy of the denial

order until August 12, 2003, after she submitted an inquiry letter

on August 1, 2003. (Id.) Petitioner's February 5, 2003, filing

does not provide a sufficient basis for finding the delay

reasonable. The Kern County Superior Court denied Petitioner's

state habeas corpus petition on February 11, 2003. Petitioner's

motion, filed February 5, 2003, merely requested that the state

court apply the mailbox rule and deem the petition filed as of

January 16, 2003. (Exhibit 30, attached to Opposition.) As

advised in the Superior Court's March 16, 2003, which Petitioner

claims she did not receive until August 12, 2003, the Superior

Court denied Petitioner's motion on the basis that the state court

did not provide the mailbox rule to state habeas corpus petitions. 

(Id.) Thus, this was not a properly filed motion, and Petitioner

nonetheless received the denial by the Superior Court on February

11, 2003. Moreover, Petitioner waited nearly six months after

submitting the motion to file an inquiry letter. Furthermore, even

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 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

4

assuming Petitioner did not receive the Superior Court's denial

until August 12, 2003, Petitioner nonetheless waited an additional

three more months until November 14, 2003 (applying the mailbox

rule), to file her state petition in the Court of Appeal. The fact

that Petitioner waited 182 days (from the date the Superior Court

denied the petition on February 11, 2003, to August 12, 2003, the

date she claims she received the denial order of her February 5,

2003, motion) simply for the Superior Court to backdate the

petition by 12 days (to which it did not have authority to do), is

simply not reasonable. Given these facts, the Court concludes that

this improperly filed and irrelevant motion does not provide a

sufficient basis for Petitioner's delay of 276 days in filing her

state petition at the next appellate level. Petitioner could and

should have filed the second petition much sooner than November 14,

2003. 

With regard to Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing,

filed August 15, 2006, it is DENIED, as Petitioner has failed to

demonstrate a sufficient basis for either statutory or equitable

tolling and an evidentiary hearing is therefore unnecessary. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 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

5

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 3, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss, filed March 3, 2006, is

GRANTED; 

3. All other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT;

4. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and,

5. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 5 of 5