Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01816/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01816-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-1816 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 5/25/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

NATHANIEL USHER,

Petitioner,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-1816 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se state

prisoner. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. His petition is now before the Court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 1981, an Alameda Superior Court jury convicted

petitioner of first degree murder, yet acquitted him of the use of a gun in the commission of

the murder. 

Case 3:10-cv-01816-RS Document 4 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-1816 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner claims that his sentence is unconstitutional because the jury’s acquittal of

petitioner on the gun use charge indicates that the jury instructions regarding felony murder

were unconstitutionally ambiguous. (Pet. at 13.) 

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or

issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244, imposes a one-year limitation period within which a

petitioner can file a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus. Under § 2244(d)(1)(D), the

one-year limitation period starts on the date on which “the factual predicate of the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” The

time begins “‘when the prisoner knows (or through diligence could discover) the important

facts, not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance.’” Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d

1150, 1154 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356, 359 (7th Cir. 2000))

(remanding case to district court for further factual findings concerning determination of

when, with exercise of due diligence, petitioner could have discovered facts to support

prejudice prong of IAC claim). Section 2244(d)(1)(D) accordingly allows the limitation

period to start running at a later date “when the facts on which a federal habeas claim is

based would not have been discovered by a duly diligent petitioner.” Ybanez v. Johnson, 204

F.3d 645, 646 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Courts should be careful not to confuse a

petitioner’s knowledge of the factual predicate of his claims with the time permitted for

Case 3:10-cv-01816-RS Document 4 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-1816 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

gathering evidence in support of the claims: “Section 2244(d)(1)(D) does not convey a

statutory right to an extended delay . . . while a habeas petitioner gathers every possible scrap

of evidence that might . . . support his claim[s].” Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 198–

99 (5th Cir. 1998). See, e.g., United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(§ 2255 petition) (even though petitioner did not have access to trial transcripts, the facts

supporting claims which occurred at the time of his conviction could have been discovered if

he “at least consult[ed] his own memory of the trial proceedings”; because he did not do so,

he did not exercise due diligence and was not entitled to a delayed start of the limitations

period under § 2255(4)).

Petitioner knew of the factual predicate of his claim at the time of his conviction in

1981, some twenty-eight years ago, well beyond AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. 

Similar to Battles, petitioner could have discovered the facts supporting his claim through his

own recollection of the trial proceedings. Plaintiff has not contended that since his

conviction there has been a change in the law relevant to his claims, or that some new facts

have come to light that could not have been known through his exercise of due diligence. 

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice on grounds of untimeliness.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01816-RS Document 4 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3