Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02160/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02160-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR CORREA,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA STATE 

PRISON, CORCORAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-2160 JAM CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges seven convictions for being a felon in 

possession of firearms and one for possession of a stolen vehicle all originating from Sacramento 

County. He is serving eight consecutive 25 years-to-life sentences.1 Respondent has filed a 

motion to dismiss this action as time barred. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) 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 –

/////

 

1

 Petitioner’s sentence was entered pursuant to California’s “Three Strikes Law.” 

Case 2:14-cv-02160-JAM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 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

27

28

2

(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.

On July 9, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted petitioner’s request for review of 

the denial of his appeal by the California Court of Appeal. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. No. 4. On 

June 21, 2012, the California Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal. Id. Petitioner’s 

conviction became final for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A) on September 19, 2012 when time 

expired for petitioner to seek a writ of certiorari with respect to the California Supreme Court’s 

decision. See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158 59 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We hold that the period of 

‘direct review’ in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) includes the period within which a petitioner can file 

a petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, whether or not the 

petitioner actually files such a petition.”). The limitations period applicable to this action began 

running the next day on September 20, 2012. This action was not commenced until September 

11, 2014 when petitioner submitted his habeas petition to prison officials for mailing. See

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 270-71 (1988). Therefore, the limitations period ran out on 

September 19, 2013 unless there is any basis for tolling.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). A review of the record before the court reveals that 

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02160-JAM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 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

27

28

3

petitioner had no actions for collateral relief pending in California courts while the limitations 

period was running.2 

Because there does not appear to be any basis to toll the limitations period before it ran 

out on September 19, 2013, respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted, and this case 

should be closed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) be granted;

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as time-barred; and 

3. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner 

may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 

the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district 

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 

applicant). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after 

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

/////

/////

 

2

 Shortly after the California Supreme Court issued its decision affirming the California Court of 

Appeal, petitioner filed what he called a “notice of appeal” concerning the California Supreme 

Court’s decision in this court. See 2:12-cv-2189 GEB EFB P. The “notice of appeal” was 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on November 6, 2012. ECF Nos. 9 & 11. Petitioner then 

appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit and the appeal was dismissed on April 25, 2013. ECF 

Nos. 13 & 17. Finally, petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari regarding the Ninth 

Circuit’s dismissal of his appeal. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. No. 15. The petition, assigned docket 

number 13-5893, was denied on October 21, 2013. While petitioner is entitled to tolling under 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) while petitions for state collateral relief are pending, petitioner is not 

entitled to tolling for actions filed in federal court. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 

(2001). 

Case 2:14-cv-02160-JAM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 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

27

28

4

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

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

Dated: March 24, 2015

1

corr2160.mtd

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02160-JAM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 4