Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01915/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01915-0/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)

---

1

18-CV-1915 JLS (NLS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS V. BARRIOS,

Petitioner,

v.

W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-CV-1915 JLS (NLS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR 

TOLLING

(ECF No. 1)

On August 10, 2018, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a document 

entitled “Petitioner’s Motion of Acknowledgment and Request for Disposition of 7-2-18 

Motion for Stay and Abeyance to Exhaust One Full Round of State Habeas Corpus” in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California. ECF No. 1. The case 

was transferred to this Court on August 15, 2018. ECF No. 3.

In his current motion, Petitioner states he filed a motion for stay and abeyance in the 

Central District on July 2, 2018, in which he asked that the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”)statute of limitations be stayed while he exhausted his claim 

in state court. ECF No. 1 at 1. It appears from the documents Petitioner has attached to 

his motion that the Central District forwarded his motion to the San Diego Superior Court. 

See ECF No. 1 at 4–7. Petitioner’s current motion asks for the status of the request to stay 

the AEDPA statute of limitations. 

Case 3:18-cv-01915-JLS-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-1915 JLS (NLS)

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

The Court is without jurisdiction to extend the one-year statute of limitations of 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1)(A)–(D), which provides that the limitation period runs from 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).

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 also 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.”). Absent some other basis for tolling, however, the statute of limitations does run 

while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82 

(2001).

Petitioner has not filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action. 

Consequently, unless Petitioner is a capital prisoner, he has not initiated habeas 

proceedings in this Court. Calderon (Nicolaus) v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 98 F.3d 1102, 1107 n.3 

(9th Cir. 1996) (stating that, “[u]nlike non-capital prisoners who initiate habeas 

Case 3:18-cv-01915-JLS-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-1915 JLS (NLS)

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

proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, capital prisoners commence 

federal habeas proceedings by filing a request for appointment of counsel”); McFarland v. 

Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994). Petitioner does not contend that he is a capital prisoner, that 

is, a prisoner under sentence of death, and there is nothing in the documents he has 

submitted which indicates that he is a capital prisoner. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request to toll the statute of limitations is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Petitioner wishes to initiate a habeas corpus 

action, he must do so by filing a new case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01915-JLS-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3