Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01901/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01901-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN S. HAMPTON, E-97187,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ELVIN VALENZUELA, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-1901 CRB (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Dkt. #23)

Petitioner, a prisoner at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo,

seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 invalidating a 1999

conviction from San Francisco County Superior Court. Per order filed June 30,

2014, the court noted that the petition appeared untimely and ordered respondent

to either move to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely or inform

the court that respondent is of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted

in this case. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner did not file an opposition despite being advised

to do so.

BACKGROUND

On February 17, 1999, the San Francisco County Superior Court

sentenced petitioner to 32 years to life in state prison after a jury found him guilty

of second degree murder and found true allegations that petitioner had used a

deadly weapon and had a prior “strike” conviction. 

Case 3:14-cv-01901-CRB Document 26 Filed 01/13/15 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

On May 30, 2000, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment

of the trial court on appeal and, on August 9, 2000, the Supreme Court of

California denied review.

On May 19, 2011, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandate/

prohibition in the California Court of Appeal. On June 1, 2011, the California

Court of Appeal denied the petition. 

On April 23, 2014, petitioner filed the instant federal petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)

became law on April 24, 1996 and imposed for the first time a statute of

limitation on petitions for a writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. 

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: (1) the judgment

became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking

direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by

unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner

from filing; (3) 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 (4) 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 postconviction or other collateral review is pending is excluded from the one-year

time limit. Id. § 2244(d)(2).

A state prisoner with a conviction finalized after April 24, 1996, ordinarily

must file his federal habeas petition within one year of the date his process of

Case 3:14-cv-01901-CRB Document 26 Filed 01/13/15 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

direct review came to an end. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler),

128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by

Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en

banc). Here, because petitioner did not seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme

Court of the United States after the Supreme Court of California denied review

on August 9, 2000, his process of direct review came to an end on November 7,

2000, when the time allotted for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari expired. 

See Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002). Petitioner therefore

had until November 7, 2001 to file a federal habeas petition within the one-year

limitation period. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001)

(calculating AEDPA’s one-year limitation period according to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 6(a)). But the instant petition was not filed until April 23, 2014. 

It is untimely unless the limitation period was tolled for a substantial period of

time.

AEDPA’s one-year limitation period is tolled under § 2244(d)(2) for 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.” 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). But unfortunately for petitioner, he filed no petition for

state post-conviction or collateral review to toll the one-year limitation period

under § 2244(d)(2) before the limitation period expired on November 7, 2001. 

His 2011 state petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition cannot revive the

expired limitation period. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th

Cir. 2003) (“[S]ection 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the limitations

period that has ended before the state petition was filed.”). 

Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling either. He has not shown “‘(1)

that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary

Case 3:14-cv-01901-CRB Document 26 Filed 01/13/15 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 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.14\Hampton, R.14-1901.mtd.wpd 4

circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida,

130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418

(2005)); accord Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as

untimely (dkt. #23) is GRANTED.

The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, terminate any

pending motions as moot and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 12, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01901-CRB Document 26 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 4