Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00430/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00430-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0430dismord.wpd, 5138 -1- 08cv0430

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ALFONSO DURAN, Civil No. 08-0430 WQH (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO VOLUNTARILY

DISMISS PETITION

v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent.

On March 6, 2008, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On

March 12, 2008, this Court denied Petitioner’s in forma pauperis request because Petitioner had

not provided a certified trust account statement. The Court dismissed the matter without

prejudice and with leave to amend. (See Doc. No. 3.) Petitioner filed a second motion to

proceed in forma pauperis on March 21, 2008, which this Court granted on March 26, 2008.

(See Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) The Court issued an Order to Respond setting a briefing schedule on April

2, 2008. (See Doc. No. 9.)

On May 2, 2008, the Court received a letter from Petitioner in which he states he wishes

to withdraw his petition without prejudice because he is currently exhausting further claims in

the California Supreme Court. Petitioner plans on presenting a petition to this Court in the future

which contains all of his claims. (See Letter dated April 29, 2008 [doc. no. 12].) Petitioner

Case 3:08-cv-00430-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 05/13/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0430dismord.wpd, 5138 -2- 08cv0430

indicates he understands that “the one year time limit is being ‘tolled’ while pursuing a properly

filed state habeas corpus petition,” but expresses concern as to whether the tolling still applies

to him if he asks for the current federal petition to be withdrawn. Petitioner also asks this Court

to tell him when his statute of limitations expires. (Id.) 

The Court cannot calculate the statute of limitations for Petitioner because it does not

have sufficient information, including when state habeas petitions were filed and denied,

whether a state court petition has been properly filed and whether Petitioner is eligible for

equitable tolling. The Court can, however, detail the basic principles of exhaustion and the oneyear statute of limitations.

EXHAUSTION

Generally, applications for writs of habeas corpus that contain unexhausted claims must

be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). However, federal courts have the

discretion to deny a habeas application on the merits notwithstanding a petitioner’s failure to

fully exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(2) (West 2006); Liegakos v.

Cooke, 106 F.3d 1381, 1388 (7th Cir. 1997). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a California

state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the

merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c);

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). The petitioner must have raised the very

same federal claims brought in the federal petition before the state supreme court. See Duncan

v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim

that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at

366.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00430-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 05/13/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0430dismord.wpd, 5138 -3- 08cv0430

ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

A one-year period of limitation applies to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period begins to run

on 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;

(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.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006). If the federal petition is filed after the statute of

limitations has run, the petition will be summarily dismissed.

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition

is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999).

But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’

when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record]

are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). However, the filing

of a federal habeas petition does not toll the statute of limitations. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S.

167, 181-82 (2001).

CONCLUSION

 The Court does not express any opinion as to whether the current petition is timely or

whether any future petition will be timely. Further, Petitioner is cautioned that even though the

current dismissal is without prejudice, any future federal petition must be filed before expiration

Case 3:08-cv-00430-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 05/13/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0430dismord.wpd, 5138 -4- 08cv0430

of the one-year statute of limitations. With those principles in mind, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s request to withdraw his petition without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00430-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 05/13/08 Page 4 of 4