Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05528/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05528-7/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

CLARK ALLEN KIMBROUGH, 

Petitioner,

vs.

ROD HICKMAN, 

Respondent.

 /

1:04-cv-05528-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Document #49)

Petitioner Clark Allen Kimbrough (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition for writ of habeas

corpus be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one year

statute of limitations. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to

be filed within thirty days. On January 15, 2007, Petitioner, thought counsel, filed objections to

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. On January 25, 2007, Respondent filed

a response to these objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

Case 1:04-cv-05528-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/27/07 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

27

28

2

the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one year statute of limitations is tolled during the period of

time for which “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The time that an application for state post-conviction

review is “pending” includes the period between (1) a lower court's adverse determination, and

(2) the prisoner's filing of a notice of appeal, provided that the filing of the notice of appeal is

timely under state law. Evans v. Chavis, 126 S.Ct. 846, 848-49 (2006); Carey v. Saffold, 536

U.S. 214 (2002). At issue in this action is whether the statute of limitations should be tolled

between the time the Kern County Superior Court denied the petition on May 18, 2001 and

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on August 15, 2002. Unlike

most States, California does not provide litigants with a specific time period to file a habeas

petition at the next appellate level, and under the California system, the next petition is timely if

filed within a “reasonable time.” Chavis, 126 S.Ct. at 849. The question in this case is whether

15 months was a reasonable time.

In the objections, Petitioner points out that the California Supreme Court stated the

relevant petition as denied on the merits and did not cite or mention any procedural rule. In

reversing the Ninth Circuit’s prior practice, the Supreme Court in Chavis, found that a California

Supreme Court order denying a petition “on the merits” does not automatically indicate that the

petition was timely filed. Chavis, 126 S.Ct. at 852. In Chavis, the Supreme Court held that the

unexplained filing delay of at least six months was not reasonable, but the Supreme Court did not

establish a bright-line rule regarding delays of less than six months. Id. at 854. Following

Chavis, the Ninth Circuit found that unexplained delays of 18, 15, and 10 months between filings

were unreasonable and the petitioner was not entitled to statutory tolling during these periods.

Gaston v. Palmer, 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006). The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge

that Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling during the 15 months between the denial of the

Kern County Superior Court petition and the filing of this petition in the California Supreme

Court.

Case 1:04-cv-05528-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/27/07 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

27

28

3

In the objections, Petitioner contends that his delay was reasonable because he was

litigating other avenues of relief during this 15 month time frame. Specifically, Petitioner

appears to have been requesting the United States Supreme Court review his habeas petitions

during this time. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that overlapping petitions do not

affect the tolling during the time Petitioner is seeking one full round of review. The fact

Petitioner was attempting to obtain relief from other courts does not make a 15 month delay

reasonable.

Petitioner next contends that in reviewing tolling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) the

court should have included the ninety day period during which a petitioner may file a petition for

writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has held that following

state collateral review a petitioner is not entitled to tolling for the period available to file a

petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, even if as here, the petition for

certiorari was actually filed. White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2002). While the

Sixth Circuit has reached a contrary result and the issue appears to be pending before the United

States Supreme Court, at this time, the court has no choice but to follow Ninth Circuit authority. 

Thus, this additional time cannot be given.

Finally, in his objections, Petitioner also makes legal arguments not previously given to

the court. In general, a new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings and

Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), 

overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). 

Assertions that which could have been but were not presented to the Magistrate Judge should be

given no consideration when the court is deciding whether to adopt Findings and

Recommendations Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal.

2001); Beam System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal.

1997). In this case, Petitioner argues for the first time in the objections that Respondent waived

the right to make any statute of limitations arguments pursuant to the reasoning in Chavis by not

making them earlier. This argument was not made before the Magistrate Judge. Regardless, the

court finds that because Chavis, changed the binding law on this court on how this court should

Case 1:04-cv-05528-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/27/07 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

27

28

4

toll pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), Respondent did not waive the statute of limitations issue. 

 When Respondent filed the prior motion to dismiss, the court denied it because, at that time, the

court was required to toll the time period between the denial of the Kern County Superior Court

petition and Petitioner filing the petition in the California Supreme Court. However, Chavis

now mandates that the court not toll, even during the first round of state habeas review, if the

petition in the California Supreme Court was not timely filed. Thus, Respondent filing a second

motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds in light of new law was appropriate. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 20, 2006, are ADOPTED

with the following modifications:

a. Page 5, lines 9-10 is amended to read that the instant petition was filed on

April 5, 2004, not October 14, 2004.

b. Page 1, line 18-21 is amended to reflect that the date of Petitioner’s

conviction as March 26, 1997;

2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Document #49) is GRANTED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Respondent and close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05528-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/27/07 Page 4 of 4