Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01315/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01315-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE CHARLES MILOSLAVICH, No. CIV S-07-1315-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. HEDGPETH,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 13) the petition as untimely. Petitioner has not filed an opposition. 

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 32 years to life in prison. 

The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. The California

Supreme Court denied direct review on March 15, 2006, and petitioner did not seek certiorari. 

Petitioner did not file any state post-conviction actions. The instant federal habeas petition was

filed on July 3, 2007.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01315-FCD-CMK Document 17 Filed 03/27/08 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

2

Federal habeas corpus petitions must be filed within one year from the later of: (1)

the date the state court judgment became final; (2) the date on which an impediment to filing

created by state action is removed; (3) the date on which a constitutional right is newlyrecognized and made retroactive on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the factual

predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d). Typically, the statute of limitations will begin to run when the state court

judgment becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or expiration of the time to seek direct

review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Where a petition for review by the California Supreme Court is filed and no

petition for certiorari is filed in the United States Supreme Court, the one-year limitations period

begins running the day after expiration of the 90-day time within which to seek review by the

U.S. Supreme Court. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001). Where no

petition for review by the California Supreme Court is filed, the conviction becomes final 40

days following the Court of Appeal’s decision, and the limitations period begins running the

following day. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2002). If no appeal is filed in the

Court of Appeal, the conviction becomes final 60 days after conclusion of proceedings in the

state trial court, and the limitations period begins running the following day. If the conviction

became final before April 24, 1996 – the effective date of the statute of limitations – the one-year

period begins to run the day after the effective date, or April 25, 1996. See Miles v. Prunty, 187

F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir. 1999).

The limitations period is tolled, however, for the time a properly filed application

for post-conviction relief is pending in the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). To be

“properly filed,” the application must be authorized by, and in compliance with, state law. See

Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000); see also Allen v. Siebert, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 5, 2007); Pace

v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (holding that, regardless of whether there are exceptions to

a state’s timeliness bar, time limits for filing a state post-conviction petition are filing conditions

Case 2:07-cv-01315-FCD-CMK Document 17 Filed 03/27/08 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

3

and the failure to comply with those time limits precludes a finding that the state petition is

properly filed). A state court application for post-conviction relief is “pending”during all the

time the petitioner is attempting, through proper use of state court procedures, to present his

claims. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). It is not, however, considered

“pending” after the state post-conviction process is concluded. See Lawrence v. Florida, ___

U.S. ___ (2007) (holding that federal habeas petition not tolled for time during which certiorari

petition to the Supreme Court was pending). Where the petitioner unreasonably delays between

state court applications, however, there is no tolling for that period of time. See Carey v. Saffold,

536 U.S. 214 (2002). If the state court does not explicitly deny a post-conviction application as

untimely, the federal court must independently determine whether there was undue delay. See id.

at 226-27. 

There is no tolling for the interval of time between post-conviction applications

where the petitioner is not moving to the next higher appellate level of review. See Nino, 183

F.3d at 1006-07; see also Dils v. Small, 260 F.3d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 2001). There is also no

tolling for the period between different sets of post-conviction applications. See Biggs v.

Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, the period between the conclusion of direct

review and the filing of a state post-conviction application does not toll the limitations period. 

See Nino, 1983 F.3d at 1006-07. 

In this case, petitioner’s conviction became final on June 13, 2006 – the day

following expiration of the time to seek certiorari. Because petitioner did not file any state

habeas petitions, statutory tolling is not an issue. Absent tolling, the one-year limitations period

ended, and the federal petition was due, on June 13, 2007. Because this petition was not filed

until July 3, 2007 – three weeks late – it is untimely. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01315-FCD-CMK Document 17 Filed 03/27/08 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

4

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) be granted; and

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment of dismissal and

close this file. 

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 26, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01315-FCD-CMK Document 17 Filed 03/27/08 Page 4 of 4