Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02232/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02232-4/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

 Respondent has lodged two groups of documents, each of which are numbered 1

sequentially, beginning with number one. They will be identified by the date of lodging along

with the document number. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH GARY SARGENT, 

Petitioner, No. C.V. S-06-2232 RRB KJM P

vs.

WARDEN B. CURRY, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a recalculation of his presentence conduct

credits and the application of Cal. Penal Code § 2933.1 to his ability to earn credits.

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition is not timely.

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted in Nevada County in 1996. 4/26/07 Lodged Document

1.1

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02232-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 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

 The CDC has since been renamed the California Department of Corrections and 2

Rehabilitation.

2

On August 31, 1999, a correctional case analyst at the California Department of

Corrections (CDC) wrote to the Nevada County Superior Court, pointing out that petitioner’s

2

presentence credits should be reduced under California Penal Code § 2933.1. 8/10/07 Lodg.

Doc. 1. An amended abstract of judgment was filed October 7, 1999, reflecting a new

calculation of petitioner’s presentence conduct credits. 4/26/07 Lodg. Doc. 5.

On November 20, 2002, petitioner filed a grievance, arguing that he was

sentenced under California Penal Code § 1170(d) and thus entitled to earn day-for-day conduct

credits rather than have his conduct credits limited to fifteen percent of his term. 8/10/07 Lodg.

Doc. 5. 

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Nevada County Superior

Court on March 22, 2004; it was denied on September 20, 2004. 4/26/07 Lodg. Docs. 6 & 7. He

followed with a petition to the Court of Appeal on November 4, 2004; it was denied November

18, 2004. 4/26/07 Lodg. Docs. 8 & 9. He then filed a petition in the California Supreme Court

on December 8, 2004; it was denied November 2, 2005. 4/26/07 Lodg. Docs. 10 & 11. 

The instant petition was filed October 10, 2006. 

II. Analysis

The AEDPA provides a statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition:

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

writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the

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;

Case 2:06-cv-02232-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 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

 Rule 31(a) has since been renumbered, on two occasions; its current equivalent is Rule 3

8.308(a).

3

(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). 

Petitioner is not challenging his underlying conviction, but rather the October 7,

1999 recalculation of his sentence and what he characterizes as a determination, around the same

time, that his ability to earn conduct credits was restricted. He did not appeal from the

recalculation, so the AEDPA limitations year began to run at the expiration of the sixty day

period for filing a notice of appeal from the amended abstract of judgment, which was December

7, 1999. The one year period thus expired December 8, 2000. Cal. Rule of Court 31(a) ; Lewis

3

v. Mitchell, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2001). The state habeas petitions, filed after

the expiration of the limitations period, did not revive it. Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 

601-02 (6th Cir. 2003). 

Petitioner argues, however, that he was “not correctly informed” of the changes

until 2003. Opp’n at 2. This argument suggests the determination of the statute of limitations

should be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D), with the triggering date being that upon which

the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered by due diligence. See Redd v.

McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2003) (in parole cases, date inmate learns of

administrative denial of parole triggers the statute of limitations).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02232-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 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

4

Respondent has lodged the declaration of Petra Melendrez, a records manager

with the CDC. She avers that under departmental policy, an inmate is provided with a Legal

Status Summary whenever the department receives an amended legal document concerning the

inmate’s conviction or sentence. 8/10/2007 Lodg. Doc. 2. Petitioner’s Chronological History

shows the CDC made an “administrative correction to offense date, 2933.1 not previously

applied, date change” on February 26, 1999, and that it received the amended abstract of

judgment on November 2, 1999. 8/10/07 Lodg. Doc. 3. Finally, a Legal Status Summary dated

October 23, 2002, reflects the restrictions on the conduct credits available to petitioner as

reflected in his minimum release date. 8/10/07 Lodg. Doc. 4. All of this, coupled with the

November 20, 2002 grievance in which petitioner complains that his sentence reflects a “halftime” credit capacity, shows petitioner was aware of the factual predicate of his claim no later

than November 20, 2002. 

Although petitioner claims he did not learn of the recalculation until 2003, he

provides no specifics to support his position. As noted, his claim is rebutted by his 2002

grievance, in which he complains about the perceived change in his credit earning capacity and

its ultimate impact on his sentence. Accordingly, the court finds the statute of limitations on the

sentencing claim began to run on November 20, 2002 and expired by November 20, 2003. The

state collateral attacks, filed after the statute of limitations had expired, did not revive it. The

instant petition is untimely. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to

dismiss be granted. 

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 twenty

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

Case 2:06-cv-02232-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 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

5

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: December 10, 2007. 

2/sarg2232.157

Case 2:06-cv-02232-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 Page 5 of 5