Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00877/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00877-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUNG TRAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-00877-CW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS NEW CLAIMS IN AMENDED 

PETITION

(Dkt. No. 20)

This action was stayed and administratively closed so that 

Petitioner Dung Tran could exhaust state court remedies as to two

claims for habeas relief. On January 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a 

motion to lift the stay and reopen the action together with an

amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On March 18, 2014, 

the Court granted the motion and ordered Respondent to show cause 

why the amended petition should not be granted. On May 19, 2014, 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the new claims in the 

amended petition as untimely and procedurally defaulted. 

Petitioner has filed an opposition. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the new claims. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a Santa Clara County jury of 

first degree murder with personal use of a firearm and was 

sentenced to twenty-nine years to life in prison. Resp.’s Ex. F, 

People v. Tran, No. H031840 (Cal. App. Aug. 21, 2009) at 1.

Petitioner appealed and, on August 21, 2009, the California 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 23 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Id. On November 19, 

2009, the California Supreme Court denied review. Resp.’s Ex. G.

From the date on the envelope in which his petition was 

mailed, it appears that Petitioner constructively filed the

petition by delivering it to prison authorities on February 2, 

2011, see Doc. no. 1, attachment 1; it was filed on the Court’s 

docket on February 24, 2011. Doc. no. 1.1On February 28, 2011, 

Petitioner filed an amended petition. Doc. no. 3. On April 15, 

2011, the Court issued an Order for Respondent to show cause why 

the amended petition should not be granted and, on July 21, 2011, 

Respondent filed his answer. Doc. nos. 7, 9. On October 31, 

2011, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings so that 

he could return to state court and exhaust additional claims, 

which the Court granted on August 10, 2012. Doc. nos. 12, 13. 

On December 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus in the Santa Clara Superior Court, which was 

denied on December 17, 2012. Doc. no. 15, Amended Petition, at 

51; Doc. no. 20, Ex. 1. On March 21, 2013, Petitioner filed a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of 

Appeal, which was denied on August 16, 2013. Doc. no. 15 at 14. 

On September 12, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which was denied 

on December 11, 2013. Doc. no. 15 at 14; Doc. no. 20, Ex. 1. On 

January 8, 2014, Petitioner moved this Court to reopen his case, 

 

1

From the date on the envelope, Respondent concludes that the 

date of constructive filing was February 11, 2011. Whether the 

petition was constructively filed on February 2 or February 11 is 

not relevant because, based upon the later date of February 11, 

Respondent acknowledges that the original petition is timely.

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 23 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 

containing two new claims in addition to the three claims raised 

in his February 28, 2011 amended petition. Doc. nos. 14-15. On 

March 18, 2014, the Court lifted the stay. Doc. no. 17.

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that Petitioner’s two new claims must be 

dismissed because they are untimely and procedurally defaulted. 

Because the Court finds that the new claims are procedurally 

defaulted, it does not address whether they are untimely.

I. Legal Standard

A federal court will not review questions of federal law 

decided by a state court if the decision rests on a state law 

ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate 

to support the judgment. Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1127 

(2011); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1991). The 

adequate and independent state ground doctrine furthers the 

exhaustion of state court remedies requirement for federal 

petitions because, without it, habeas petitioners would be able 

to avoid exhaustion by defaulting their federal claims in state 

court. Walker, 131 S.Ct. at 1127. To qualify as an adequate 

procedural ground, a state rule must be firmly established and 

regularly followed. Id. at 1127-28 (citation omitted). In cases 

in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in 

state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state 

procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred 

unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and 

actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal 

law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 23 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Id.; Coleman, 

501 U.S. at 750.

II. Analysis

The California Supreme Court issued a one-sentence denial of

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a citation 

to In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998), indicating that 

the petition was untimely.

2

 In Walker, the United States Supreme 

Court held that California’s timeliness bar was an adequate

procedural rule that bars federal habeas review.3 Walker, 131 

S.Ct. at 1128-31. 

Petitioner acknowledges that California’s timeliness rule is 

an independent ground for relief. However, he argues that the 

Ninth Circuit, in Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200, 1207 (9th 

Cir. 2009), held that the timeliness rule is not an adequate 

procedural rule and, therefore, it cannot bar federal habeas 

 

2

Robbins stated that an untimely petition 

will be entertained on the merits if the 

petitioner demonstrates (i) that error of 

constitutional magnitude led to a trial that 

was so fundamentally unfair that absent the 

error no reasonable judge or jury would have 

convicted the petitioner; (ii) that the 

petitioner is actually innocent of the crime 

or crimes of which he or she was convicted; 

(iii) that the death penalty was imposed by a 

sentencing authority that had such a grossly 

misleading profile of the petitioner before 

it that, absent the trial error or omission, 

no reasonable judge or jury would have 

imposed a sentence of death; or (iv) that the 

petitioner was convicted or sentenced under 

an invalid statute.

Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th at 780–781.

3

In Walker, the parties did not dispute that the timeliness rule 

was an independent state ground. Walker, 131 S.Ct. at 1127.

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 23 Filed 01/14/15 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

review of his two new claims. 

However, all Ninth Circuit authority, including Townsend, 

questioning the adequacy of California’s timeliness bar was 

superseded by the Supreme Court’s holding in Walker, 131 S.Ct. at 

1126-27.

Petitioner does not argue that he can overcome the 

procedural bar by showing cause and prejudice or that failure to 

consider his claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of 

justice. Therefore, his claims are procedurally defaulted and 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the two new claims in 

Petitioner’s January 8, 2014 amended petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus is granted. 

2. As stated previously, Respondent has filed an answer to 

the February 28, 2011 amended petition. If Petitioner wishes to 

respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with 

the Court and serving it on Respondent no later than thirty days 

from the date of this Order. If he does not do so, the petition 

will be deemed submitted and ready for decision on the date the 

Traverse is due.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2015

__________________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 23 Filed 01/14/15 Page 5 of 5