Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02068/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02068-0/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1

 Petition has filed approximately fifty-four lawsuits in the federal courts across California,

none of which appear to have been successful to date. 

Order of Dismissal

N:\JW Cases\05\05-2068jw.ord.dis.wpd

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BILLY E. CRAMER,

Petitioner(s),

 v.

WILLIAM DUNCAN, Warden,

Respondent(s).

 /

NO. C 05-02068 JW PR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING AS

MOOT MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS 

DOCKET NOS. 2, 4

INTRODUCTION

On May 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a completed form entitled "Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus" (docket no. 1).1 On March 29, 2006, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend. 

In that Order, the Court advised Petitioner that he had failed to assert identifiable federal claims, and

directed Petitioner to amend his petition to clearly and concisely state his grounds for relief and the

factual basis for his claims. 

In addition, the Court advised Petitioner that he had failed to allege he had exhausted his state

remedies, and directed Petitioner to specifically indicate in his amended petition whether he had

exhausted his claims, i.e.,whether he pursued his claims through the state appellate court system up

Case 5:05-cv-02068-JW Document 29 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Order of Dismissal

N:\JW Cases\05\05-2068jw.ord.dis.wpd 2

to and including the California Supreme Court. The Court warned Petitioner that if he failed to

allege he had exhausted his claims, his action would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling after

available state judicial remedies were exhausted. In addition, the Court advised Petitioner that his

petition appeared untimely, and directed Petitioner to allege sufficient facts in his amended petition

to establish that his petition was timely filed. Petitioner filed an amended petition on May 1, 2006.

DISCUSSION

A district court may entertain a petition for a 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); see Rose v.

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The court shall issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted unless it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner

is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases

Under Section 2254. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has first exhausted

state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral proceedings, by presenting the

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every issue he or

he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16

(1982). 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which became law

on April 24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations 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

Case 5:05-cv-02068-JW Document 29 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Order of Dismissal

N:\JW Cases\05\05-2068jw.ord.dis.wpd 3

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). AEDPA's one-year time limit

does not begin to run against any state prisoner before the date of the Act's enactment. Calderon v.

United States District Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997) (allowing § 2244(d)'s

limitation period to commence before AEDPA's enactment would have an impermissible retroactive

effect), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1, and cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled in part on other

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

cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060 (1999). A prisoner with a state conviction finalized before April 24,

1996 therefore has until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas petition on time. Patterson v.

Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Contrary to the Court’s specific instructions, the Amended Petition fails to allege any

identifiable federal claim. Instead, Petitioner labels his claims in vague and conclusory language: (1)

“due process or fair trial ineffective rep”; (2) “reasonable doubt beyond! reason to doubt”; and (3)

favorable evidence bullet hole scars medical records.” 

Further, Petitioner admits that the Amended Petition is not exhausted: In the form petition for

a writ of habeas corpus provided by the district court, Petitioner indicates with a checkmark that he

has not appealed to the California Supreme Court. 

In addition, the Court finds that the Amended Petition is untimely. Almost ten years have

passed since Petitioner's limitations period began to run on April 24, 1996, and Petitioner does not

allege facts that would give rise to a delayed commencement of the limitations period under

subsections (2) to (4) listed above. Petitioner also does not allege any basis for tolling the statute of

limitations. 

Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The motions to proceed in forma

Case 5:05-cv-02068-JW Document 29 Filed 08/15/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Order of Dismissal

N:\JW Cases\05\05-2068jw.ord.dis.wpd 4

pauperis are DENIED as moot.

Dated: August 15, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02068-JW Document 29 Filed 08/15/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Order of Dismissal

N:\JW Cases\05\05-2068jw.ord.dis.wpd

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Billy E. Cramer

H12246

Salinas Valley State Prison

P. O. Box 1050 cell d-4-109

Soledad, Ca 93960

Dated: August 15, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: 

 Albert “J” Younger

 Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-02068-JW Document 29 Filed 08/15/06 Page 5 of 5