Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00748/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00748-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. BEDFORD,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS, Warden,

Respondent. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0748 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket no. 14)

In response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, Respondent

filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner's habeas petition as untimely

(docket no. 14). Petitioner opposes the motion, and Respondent

filed a reply to the opposition. For the reasons discussed below,

the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND 

In 2001, a Santa Clara County jury found Petitioner guilty of

resisting an executive officer. On June 1, 2001, the trial court

found true Petitioner's prior strike allegations and sentenced

Petitioner to state prison for twenty-five years to life pursuant

to California's Three Strikes law. 

On August 29, 2002, the California Court of Appeal affirmed

his conviction. (Resp't Ex. 1.) On November 13, 2002, the

California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for review. 

(Resp't Ex. 2.)

On May 20, 2003, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in

the Santa Clara County Superior Court raising two claims: (1) his

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 11
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

2

sentence under California's Three Strikes law was unconstitutional

because his prior conviction was invalid due to insufficient

evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based on

his trial counsel's failure to call an exculpatory witness. 

(Resp't Ex. 3; Pet. at 4.) On July 21, 2003, the superior court

denied the petition, specifically denying the second claim without

prejudice. (Resp't Ex. 4.) Petitioner then filed an amended state

habeas petition with regard to the second claim, which the superior

court denied on October 8, 2003. (Resp't Ex. 5.) 

On October 30, 2003, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition

with the California Court of Appeal, raising the two claims

previously raised in superior court. (Resp't Ex. 6.) The

appellate court denied the petition on January 14, 2004. (Pet. at

5.) On February 2, 2004, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition

in the California Supreme Court raising the same two claims. 

(Resp't Ex. 7.) The state supreme court denied the petition on

December 1, 2004. (Pet. at 5.)

On January 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a second state habeas

petition in the California Supreme Court raising two new claims: 

(1) insufficiency of the evidence because Petitioner's level of

intoxication at the time of the incident showed that he lacked the

requisite mens rea to commit the crime of resisting an officer and

(2) IAC based on his trial counsel's failure to argue the

aforementioned claim of insufficiency of the evidence. (Resp't Ex.

8, Pet. at 5.)

On January 27, 2005, Petitioner filed his first federal habeas

petition in this Court, while his second state habeas petition was

still pending. See Bedford v. Brown, Case No. C 05-0403 CW (PR). 

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 11
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

3

Petitioner raised two claims: (1) the trial court erred in

instructing the jury using California Jury Instructions Criminal

(CALJIC) No. 17.41.1 and (2) IAC based on his trial counsel's

failure to call an exculpatory witness. (Jan. 23, 2005 Pet. at 7-

8.) Petitioner also indicated that he had pending a state habeas

petition, which included the two other claims relating to

insufficiency of the evidence. (Id. at 7.) On October 12, 2005,

the Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state

judicial remedies and granted Petitioner leave to file an amended

petition within thirty days of the date of the order if the state

supreme court had ruled on his state habeas petition. (Oct. 12,

2005 Order at 3.) Otherwise his petition would be dismissed

without prejudice and without further leave to amend. (Id.) 

Petitioner failed to file his amended petition within the thirtyday deadline. (Dec. 1, 2005 Order at 1.) On December 1, 2005, the

Court dismissed the petition without prejudice, entered judgment in

favor of Respondent, and closed the case. (Id.)

On December 14, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied

Petitioner's second state habeas petition.

On January 23, 2006, Petitioner signed his second federal

habeas petition and it was file stamped in this Court on February

2, 2006.

DISCUSSION 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA), which became law on April 24, 1996, imposed a statute of

limitations on petitions for a writ of habeas corpus filed by state

prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 11
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

4

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 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). 

A state prisoner with a conviction finalized after April 24,

1996, such as Petitioner, ordinarily must file his federal habeas

petition within one year of the date his process of direct review

came to an end. See Calderon v. United States District Court

(Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on

other grounds by Calderon v. United States District Court (Kelly),

163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 

The one-year period generally will run from "the date on which

the judgment became final by conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review." 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1)(A). "Direct review" includes the ninety-day period

during which a criminal appellant can file a petition for a writ of

certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, whether he

actually files such a petition or not. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d

1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). 

In the present case, the California Supreme Court denied

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 4 of 11
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

1

 A pro se federal habeas petition is deemed filed on the date

it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing. See Saffold v.

Newland, 250 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2001), vacated and remanded on

other grounds, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (holding that a

federal or state habeas petition is deemed filed on the date the

prisoner submits it to prison authorities for mailing, rather than the

date it is received by the courts). January 23, 2006 is the date the

instant petition was signed and the earliest date that the petition

could have been delivered to prison authorities for mailing. The

Court assumes for the purposes of this discussion that the petition

was delivered to prison authorities on that date. 

5

review on November 13, 2002. The judgment became final for

purposes of the statute of limitations ninety days later, on

February 11, 2003. See Bowen, 188 F.3d at 1159. The one-year

limitations period, therefore, began to run on that date. 

Accordingly, Petitioner had until February 11, 2004 to file the

instant petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Therefore, his second

federal habeas petition filed on January 23, 2006,1 almost two

years after the limitations period had expired, is untimely absent

tolling or relation back to the first federal petition.

The petition may nonetheless be timely if the limitations

period was tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) for a substantial

period of time. AEDPA's one-year limitations period is tolled

under § 2244(d)(2) for the "'time during which a properly filed

application for State post-conviction or other collateral review

[with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim] is pending.'" 

Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2)). In Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 223

(2002), the Supreme Court held that the limitations period is also

tolled during the time between a lower state court's decision and

the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court. In

California, where prisoners generally use the State's "'original

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 5 of 11
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

2

 In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts of

appeal, and superior courts all have original habeas corpus

jurisdiction. Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 n.2 (9th Cir.

1999). Although a superior court order denying habeas corpus relief

is non-appealable, a state prisoner may file a new habeas corpus

petition in the California Court of Appeal. Id. If the appellate

court denies relief, the petitioner may seek review in the California

Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, or may instead file an

original habeas petition. Id. at 1006 n.3.

6

writ' system," this means that the limitations period remains

tolled during the intervals between a state court's disposition of

an original state habeas petition and the filing of a further

original state habeas petition in a higher court, provided the

prisoner did not delay unreasonably in seeking review in the higher

court. See id. at 220-25.2 

Accordingly, the one-year limitations period began running

against Petitioner on February 11, 2003 and ran until it was tolled

by the filing of his state habeas petition in the Santa Clara

County Superior Court on May 20, 2003, which is a period of ninetyeight days. Therefore, Petitioner only had 267 more days (365 days

minus 98 days) -- about nine months -- to file his federal habeas

petition. 

Petitioner is entitled to tolling for one complete round of

state habeas review. See Carey, 536 U.S. at 223. Therefore, the

limitations period was tolled from May 20, 2003 (the date on which

he filed his first state habeas petition in the superior court) to

December 1, 2004 (the date on which the state supreme court denied

his first state habeas petition). This period of statutory tolling

includes the seventy-nine days from July 21, 2003 (the date on

which the superior court denied Petitioner's first state habeas

petition) until October 8, 2003 (the date on which the superior

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 6 of 11
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

3

 The Court notes that in 2002, the Ninth Circuit held that

tolling under § 2244(d)(2) ended thirty days after the California

Supreme Court's denial of the final habeas petition was filed because

that was when the denial became "final" under former California Rule

of Court 24. Allen v. Lewis, 295 F.3d 1046, 1046 (9th Cir. 2002) (en

banc) (reaffirming Bunney v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir.

2001)). However, the rationale of Allen only applies to denials the

California Supreme Court filed before January 1, 2003. On January 1,

2003, the California Supreme Court made clear that its orders denying

petitions for a writ of habeas corpus within its original jurisdiction

are final on filing. Cal. Rule of Court 8.532(b)(2)(C). Accordingly,

the denial of Petitioner's state habeas petition within the California

Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was final on the date of its

filing, December 1, 2004.

4

 Under the mailbox rule mentioned above, the Court assumes for

the purposes of this discussion that the petition was delivered to

prison authorities on January 23, 2005, the date his first federal

petition was signed. 

7

court denied Petitioner's second habeas petition) because the

superior court denied the petition without prejudice and Petitioner

promptly amended his second claim. 

Petitioner then filed his second state habeas petition

containing two new claims in the state supreme court on January 7,

2005. However, the filing of a second state habeas petition does

not toll the limitations because Petitioner is entitled to tolling

for only one complete round of state habeas review. See Carey, 536

U.S. at 223. 

Prior to receiving a decision from the state supreme court,

Petitioner filed his first federal petition on January 27, 2005,

which was dismissed as unexhausted. After Petitioner's state

habeas petition was denied on December 14, 2005, he filed his

second federal petition on January 23, 2006. 

In sum, the statute resumed running on December 1, 2004, the

date the California Supreme Court's denial of Petitioner's state

habeas petition was final,3 and ran until January 23, 2005,4 the

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 7 of 11
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

8

date his first federal petition was deemed filed, which is 53

additional days. Therefore, a total of 151 days (98 days plus 53

days) had elapsed before Petitioner filed his first federal

petition on January 23, 2005. Therefore, his first federal

petition was timely because it was filed before the limitations

period expired.

The Court finds merit in Petitioner's argument that his second

federal petition is not time-barred because it relates back to the

date he filed his previously dismissed first federal petition. The

record shows that Petitioner's first federal petition contained at

least one exhausted claim -- his IAC claim relating to his trial

counsel's failure to call an exculpatory witness. It is not

evident from the record whether or not his claim of instructional

error was exhausted. The dismissal of Petitioner's first federal

petition was improper because the Court did not inform Petitioner

that he could ask to stay the proceedings while he exhausted his

unexhausted claims in state court. See Ford v. Hubbard, 330 F.3d

1086, 1102 (9th Cir. 2003) (relating back second petition where

dismissal of mixed petition was improper because district court had

not informed pro se petitioner of stay option or of petition's

status under AEDPA's limitations period), rev'd on other grounds

sub nom. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004); Anthony v. Cambra,

236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2000) (allowing court to exercise its

equitable powers to accept new petition nunc pro tunc to date

earlier petition filed, where earlier petition had been dismissed

without providing petitioner choice of deleting unexhausted claims

or accepting dismissal of entire petition). If a petitioner's

prior mixed petition was improperly dismissed, and he accepted the

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 8 of 11
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 9

dismissal, exhausted his state court remedies, and then filed a

second petition without unreasonable delay, the second petition

relates back to and preserves the filing date of the improperlydismissed initial petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(c). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner's second

federal petition is timely because it relates back to the date

Petitioner filed his first petition -- January 23, 2005. This

relation-back only applies to claims included in the initial

petition; any new claims in the second petition that were not

presented in the original petition do not relate back to the

initial petition. Ford, 330 F.3d at 1105. However, the Court

construes Petitioner's statement in his first federal petition --

that he was pursuing his two other claims relating to insufficiency

of the evidence in a second state habeas petition that was pending

-- as an attempt to preserve them in his first federal petition. 

The Court finds that the two claims in Petitioner's second federal

petition relate back to the original two claims in the first

federal petition, which were timely filed on January 23, 2005

before the limitations period expired. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Respondent's motion to dismiss

the second federal petition as untimely.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition (docket no.

14) is DENIED.

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 9 of 11
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.06\Bedford0748.denyMTD(sol).frm 10

2. Within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order,

Respondent shall file an Answer showing cause why a writ of habeas

corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the Answer

a copy of all state records that have been transcribed previously

and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

the petition. 

3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall

do so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it upon

Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed

submitted and ready for decision thirty (30) days after the date

Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer.

4. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of

address. 

5. This Order terminates Docket no. 14.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/19/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 10 of 11
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.06\Bedford0748.denyMTD(sol).frm 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L BEDFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

S ORNOSAI et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-00748 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 19, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Gregory L. Bedford T-22294

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Michele Joette Swanson

CA State Attorney General's Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: March 19, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-00748-CW Document 17 Filed 03/19/08 Page 11 of 11