Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01721/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01721-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNIE MARTINEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1721 FCD GGH P

vs.

WARDEN HARRISON,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed October 6, 2005, petitioner was ordered to file a new application

to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period expired, and

petitioner had not responded to the court’s order. The court, thereafter, on January 8, 2006, filed

findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner did not

file objections timely, but, instead belatedly sought an extension of time to file his in forma

pauperis affidavit. 

The court will now proceed to the screening of the petition absent fee payment or

in forma pauperis affidavit because the petition is also otherwise wholly defective. Petitioner

challenges a 1987 conviction on a no contest plea in Sacramento Superior Court for murder/use

of a deadly weapon for which he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. 

Case 2:05-cv-01721-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Petitioner sets forth as the only ground of his petition a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

because his “counsel failed to bring up issues.” Form Petition, p. 3. His “supporting facts” are

that he “was asking my lawyer to bring up issues this [sic] would help me prove myself not

guilty. He failed to grant my wishes.” Id. Petitioner apparently has presented this vague and

insupportable claim only to the Sacramento County Superior Court, which claim was denied 

some time in 2005. 

This petition should be summarily dismissed not only because no cognizable

claim is set forth by petitioner’s vague characterization, but the claim, such as it is, is both

unexhausted and so far outside the applicable statute of limitations that even if he had framed a

viable ground for relief, none would be available. 

Exhaustion

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement

by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971), Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). The ill-framed claim

has not been presented to the California Supreme Court.

Timeliness

On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)

was enacted. AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) so that it now provides,

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

Case 2:05-cv-01721-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 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

3

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.

Petitioner’s conviction became final before the enactment of AEDPA. The Ninth

Circuit has held that AEDPA’s one year statute of limitations for habeas corpus petitions filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not run against any state prisoner prior to the date of the

statute’s enactment. Calderon v. United States District Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th

Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Calderon v. U.S. District Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530

(9th Cir. 1998), itself abrogated on other grounds by Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 123 S.

Ct. 1398 (2003). The one-year statute of limitations under AEDPA began to run the day

following day, on April 25, 1996. Therefore, petitioner had until April 24, 1997–one year from

the enactment of AEDPA–to timely file a § 2254 petition. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243,

1246 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Although section 2244(d)(2) provides that 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, it is patently evident that petitioner cannot invoke such a provision when he has only

very recently brought his defective claims before the state superior court. 

The court must recommend dismissal with prejudice of this application for its

patent deficiency.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s August 25, 2005 petition

be dismissed summarily and with prejudice.

Case 2:05-cv-01721-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 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

4

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 3/6/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

mart1721.fr2

Case 2:05-cv-01721-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 03/06/06 Page 4 of 4