Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00162/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00162-0/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

 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

The Court reviewed Respondent’s Withdrawn Motion to Dismiss. However, that

document did not play a part in the Court’s analyses or conclusions reached

herein.

1 08CV0162

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO ALVE,

Petitioner,

v.

L.E. SCRIBNER

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-0162-W(LSP)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

DISMISSING PETITION AND

DENYING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST

FOR STAY 

Alejandro Alve (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, has filed a Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §2254. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Petition. Petitioner has filed an Opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss. On June 26, 2008, Respondent filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss and Request for Stay Pending Issuance of

the Mandate in Hayward.

 The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s Petition, Respondent’s Withdrawn Motion to Dismiss1

, Petitioner’s Opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss, and the documents lodged with the Court and/or

attached to the pleadings, finds that Petitioner’s Petition is

barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 11
 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

The Court gives Petitioner the benfit of the “mailbox rule” which deems

that a petition is constructively filed when it is delivered to prison officials

for filing. Houston v. Lack 487 U.S. 266 (1988)

2 08CV0162

RECOMMENDS that the Petition be DISMISSED and Respondent’s Request

for Stay be DENIED.

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner is serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment for two counts of first degree murder with a deadly weapon.

(Respondent’s Lodgment No. 1)

On November 16, 2005, Petitioner was denied parole by the

California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) (Respondent’s Lodgment

No. 2)

On January 19, 2006, Petitioner constructively2 filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Imperial County Superior

Court. (Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Exh. A,

Respondent’s Supplemental Lodgment No. 16) On March 9, 2006, the

Imperial County Superior Court denied the Petition without prejudice

and directed Petitioner to file his Petition in the court that

sentenced him. (Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Exh.

B, Respondent’s Supplemental Lodgment No. 18).

On March 29, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court. (Respondent’s

Supplemental Lodgment No. 17) On May 25, 2006, the Petition was

denied because Petitioner did not present a prima facie case for

relief and did not attach the appropriate court record in support of

his Petition. (Respondent’s Supplemental Lodgment No. 19)

 On June 19, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ Of

Habeas Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court. The appropriate

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 11
 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 08CV0162

state court record was attached to the Petition. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 3) On August 16, 2006, the Superior Court denied the

Petition. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 4).

On August 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ Of

Habeas Corpus with the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate

District. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 5). On October 23, 2006, the

Court of Appeal denied the Petition. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 6).

On November 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with this Court. [Case No. 06-2493-JM(CAB)] On 

July 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a

Report and Recommendation granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

because the Petition was unexhausted. On October 4, 2007, the

District Judge assigned to the case adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation.

On August 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ Of

Habeas Corpus with the California Supreme Court. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 7). On January 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court

denied the Petition. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 15)

On January 25, 2008, Petitioner filed the current Petition

For Writ Of Habeas Corpus with this Court.

II

PETITIONER’S PETITION IS BARRED

BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

1. The AEDPA’s One-Year Statute of Limitations.

Respondent argues that the Petition is barred by the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“the AEDPA”)

statute of limitations. The provisions of the AEDPA apply to

petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in federal court after

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 3 of 11
 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 08CV0162

the AEDPA’s effective date of April 24, 1996. Lindh v. Murphy, 521

U.S. 320, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2068 (1997). Therefore, because the

Petition was filed on January 25, 2008, the AEDPA applies to this

case.

Prior to the enactment of the AEDPA on April 24, 1996, “state

prisoners had almost unfettered discretion in deciding when to file

a federal habeas petition.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118

U.S. 897 (1998), overruled on other grounds by Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 540 (9th Cir. 1998).

“[D]elays of more than a decade did not necessarily bar a prisoner

from seeking relief.” Id. 

With enactment of the AEDPA, a state prisoner’s time frame

for seeking federal habeas relief was dramatically limited. The

AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 by, in part, adding subdivision (d),

which provides for a one-year limitation period for state prisoners

to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. Section 2244(d)

states, in pertinent part:

 (d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an

application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run 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

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 4 of 11
 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

5 08CV0162

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. 

(2) 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 shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)

The Ninth Circuit has held that 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(D)

applies to petitions for writ of habeas corpus challenging the

decisions of administrative bodies such as parole boards. Shelby v.

Bartlett 391 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004), Redd v. McGrath 343

F.3d 1077, 1082, n.8 (9th Cir. 2003), citing inter alia, Kimbrell v.

Cockrell 311 F.3d 361, 363-364 (5th Cir. 2002)

Section §2244 (d)(1)(D) states that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date in which the factual predicate of

the claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise

of due diligence. Here, Petitioner knew the factual predicate of

his claims on November 16, 2005, the date of the BPH’s decision

denying him parole. Therefore, absent tolling, Petitioner had until

November 16, 2006, to file his Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus

with this Court. However, Petitioner filed several petitions for

post-conviction relief with the California Superior, Appellate, and

Supreme Court. Petitioner also filed a prior Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with this Court. The statute of limitations is tolled

while a “properly filed” state habeas corpus petition is “pending”

in the state court. Under the holding of Nino v. Galaza 183 F.3d

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 5 of 11
 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

6 08CV0162

1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999), the “statute of limitations is tolled

from the time the first state habeas petition is filed until the

California Supreme Court rejects petitioner’s final collateral

challenge,” provided the petitions were properly filed and pending

during that entire time. The statute of limitations is not tolled

from the time a final decision is issued on direct state appeal and

the time the first state collateral challenge is filed because there

is no case “pending” during that interval. Nino 183 F.3d at 1006 

The meaning of the terms “properly filed” and “pending” in

Nino have been clarified by the United States Supreme Court. In

Carey v. Saffold 536 U.S. 214 (2002), the Court held that the time

between the denial of a petition in a lower California court and the

filing of a subsequent petition in the next higher court does not

toll the statute of limitations, if the petition is ultimately found

to be untimely. Id. at 223-26. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo 544 U.S. 408

(2005), the Court held that statutory tolling is not available for

the period a petition is under consideration, if it is dismissed as

untimely. Id. at 413. In Evans v. Chavis 546 U.S. 189 (2006), the

Court held that in the absence of a clear indication by the

California Supreme Court that a petition is untimely, “the federal

court must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what

the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.” Id. at

197 The Evans Court gave some guidance in making that determination: federal courts must assume (until the California courts state

otherwise) that California law regarding timeliness does not differ

significantly from other states which use 30 or 60 day rules for

untimeliness and, a 6-month unexplained delay is presumptively

unreasonable. 

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 6 of 11
 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

7 08CV0162

Further, a petition is not entitled to tolling of the statute

of limitations for the time that a previous federal habeas petition

was pending in federal court. Jiminez v. Rice 276 F.3d 478 (9th Cir.

2001), citing Duncan v. Walker 533 U.S. 167 (2001) 

In this case, Petitioner’s first petition for relief from the

BPH’s decision was filed with the Imperial County Superior Court on

January 19, 2006. On March 9, 2006, the Imperial County Superior

Court denied the Petition without prejudice. 

On March 29, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court. On May 25, 2006

the Petition was denied. On June 19, 2006 filed another Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court. On

August 16, 2006, the Petition was denied. Next, on August 27, 2006,

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the

California Court of Appeal. On October 23, 2006, the Court of

Appeal denied the Petition. 

After the Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s Petition on

October 23, 2006, on November 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court. On October 4, 2007, the

Petition was dismissed because Petitioner failed to exhaust the

claims in the Petition.

While Petitioner’s federal habeas Petition was pending, on

August 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus with the California Supreme Court. On January 16, 2008, the

California Supreme Court denied the Petition.

On January 25, 2008, Petitioner filed the current Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court.

From November 16, 2005 (the date of the BPH’s decision) to

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 7 of 11
 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

On June 11, 2008, the Court decided for purposes of this analysis and

absent presentation of contrary evidence, that on January 23, 2006, Petitioner

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Imperial County Superior

Court. The Petition was constructively filed on January 19, 2006. For this

analysis, the Court gives Petitioner the benefit of the doubt and assumes that the

constructively filed January 19, 2006 Petition was “properly filed” despite

Respondent’s arguments to the contrary. (See Declaration of Linnea Piazza in

Support of Respondent’s Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss and Request for Stay at

4)

8 08CV0162

January 19, 2006 (the date Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in the Imperial County Superior Court) 64 days (2

months, 3 days) elapsed. Thereafter, from January 19, 2006 to

October 23, 2006 (the date the Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s

Petition), the statute of limitations was tolled, as Petitioner was

properly pursuing his state court remedies.3

However, Petitioner did not file his Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court until August 1, 2007.

From October 23, 2006 to August 1, 2007, 282 days (9 months 9 days)

elapsed. On January 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied

the Petition. 

On January 25, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with this Court. From January 16, 2008 to January 25,

2008, 9 days elapsed.

As noted above, Evans v. Chavis, supra, instructs that to

determine whether a petition is entitled to statutory tolling, the

federal court must itself examine the delay between the denial of a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in a lower state court and the

filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the next highest

state court. The Evans court noted that a 6 month unexplained delay

is presumptively unreasonable.

In this case, 282 days (9 months 9 days) elapsed between the

date of the Court of Appeal’s decision and Petitioner’s filing a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court.

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 8 of 11
 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

The Court notes that on November 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court. That Petition was ultimately denied on

October 4, 2007. While the November 7, 2006 federal Petition was pending, on

August 1, 2007, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus with the California Supreme Court. While Jimenez and Duncan direct that

tolling of the statute of limitations is not available when the federal petition

is pending, the Court finds that the statute of limitations was not tolled from

November 7, 2006 (the date Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

with this Court) to August 1, 2007 (the date Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus with the California Supreme Court. 

9 08CV0162

Since the Evans court noted that an unexplained 6 month delay under

these circumstances in presumptively unreasonable, the Court finds

that statutory tolling is not available for this time period, and

that the 282 day delay is presumptively unreasonable. Therefore, the

statute of limitations was not tolled during this time period.

Further, from November 7, 2006 (the date Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court)

to August 1, 2007 (the date Petitioner constructively filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the California Supreme

Court) (267 days)(8 months 27 days), the statute of limitations was

not tolled because Petitioner is not entitled to tolling of the

statute of limitations while his federal habeas corpus action was

pending in this Court. Jiminez 276 F.3d 478, Duncan 533 U.S. 167.4

Since the statute of limitations was not tolled for a total

of 622 days (64 + 282 + 9 + 267), Petitioner failed to file his

Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus with this court within the oneyear statute of limitations mandated in 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(A).

2. Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations

The one-year statute of limitations is subject to equitable

tolling. Calderon 128 F.3d at 1288 Equitable tolling of the statute

of limitations is appropriate where a habeas petitioner shows: (1)

that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Pace v. DiGuglielmo 544

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 9 of 11
 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

10 08CV0162

U.S. 408, 418 (2005). When courts assess a habeas petitioner’s

argument in favor of equitable tolling, they must conduct a “highly

fact-dependent” inquiry. Whalem/Hunt v. Early 233 F.3d 1146, 1148

(9th Cir. 2000), Lott v. Mueller 304 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2002) The

extraordinary circumstances must be the “but-for and proximate

cause” of the untimely filing. Allen v. Lewis 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th

Cir. 2001)

Here, Petitioner has not presented any facts to show that he

is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

Therefore, equitable tolling does not apply.

 III

 RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR STAY IS DENIED

Since the Court has found that Petitioner failed to file his

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Court within the oneyear statute of limitations, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s

Request for Stay be DENIED.

 IV

 CONCLUSION

After a thorough review of the record in this matter, the

Court has determined that Petitioner has failed to comply with the

AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS

that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED.

The Court also RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Request for Stay be

DENIED.

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than August 1, 2008, any party

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 10 of 11
 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

11 08CV0162

to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve

a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

August 29, 2008. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise

those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 30, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00162-W-WVG Document 16 Filed 06/30/08 Page 11 of 11